Communism and Socialism for Dummies

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry
 


PS an 'investment' is a voluntary decision to allocate funds. Taxation without permission is theft. Lets at least use the proper terms.

The investment comment was about investing in people in the short term so that they will be elevated and their taxes paid back with money to spare in the future by them and by their children and their children's children. They certainly are an investment for society.




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
As usual with anything touching on the political, the battle lines form, and cannons begin firing, left to right, and back again.

But this thread should be more about "Communism for Dummies", meaning that perhaps people should be sharing what they feel is the most important thing to convey about this issue.

Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea to spend a moment reflecting on the basic fact that the world is already "communist", for the most part, because most of those ten planks Marx put in his Manifesto, are here, regardless of your nation.

That being said, things could be further refined, some may want to argue that things are much more "socialist", etc. That's fine.

But however you would prefer it, shouldn't we ask if this system is "working"?

Some have already shared that they think this system is doing just fine, that the modern "welfare state" has a good track record. It seems to have raised general standards of living, etc.

Others missed the train entirely, especially Americans, who honestly continue to think they are living in a "capitalist" country (perhaps with a bit of socialism, but not too much!)

And then there are those who realize that the usual arguments, "socialism vs. capitalism", hardly apply today. Why? Because no one is talking about the same thing anyway!

What ARE people talking about? Well, mostly what they know. And what we know is primarily a "welfare state", and you can attach whatever "ism" you prefer, but at least we would now be on the same page.

And so, again I ask, as free of confusing "isms" as possible, does the modern welfare state WORK?

My answer is NO. It is a titanic failure, in spite of having been unjustly credited by many with positive accomplishments, such as a raised living standard.

I would suggest that it is NOT the welfare state that has given us these various benefits we might think of. What actually ALLOWED for the forced redistribution of wealth to begin with, was "wealth to begin with". Not mere semantics, please think about it.

What exactly would our benevolent socialist masters have to redistribute at all, if it was not something, produced by someone?

And this is why the welfare state HAS BECOME (yes, past tense!) a titanic failure.

For those who are shocked by the statement, I could now deliver a short "history lesson" covering the past few years, that would underscore my point. Yes, there is a global financial crisis, the size of which has never been visited upon the world before. It did not just materialize out of no where.

Across the globe, nation, after nation, spent, and spent, with most nations having little regard for what they produced. How could this have ever taken place?

For generations now, the world's most powerful communist nation, the USA, has "led" the world down this path. The US, with it's central bank, the Federal Reserve, was given by the rest of the world the vast power to create "money" out of thin air. And this they did. Without getting into details, you could look up "Bretton Woods", if anyone cared to.

As a result, the entire world was subjected to a massive "reengineering" that had never been attempted before. The nations each fell into line, with some now better enabled to increase their consumption, and other nations now given "incentive", to produce for the wealthier nations (yes, even at the cost of "slave labor"!).

And so, the "welfare state" was paid for, but when we look closely, we find that there was in fact no "free lunch" at all. In Asia, the masses lined up for their daily pay, their bowls of rice. Looking even closer, we find children working. Closer still? Human "baggage" that failed to produce, being exterminated. Such has been their "history" in this "prosperous" post WW2 era.

In the West, there was widespread encouragement to get quite fat, and lazy. Oh yes, CONSUME! Whether it was Big Macs, or McMansions, they ended up (predictably I'm afraid), in a very human feeding frenzy.

Such is the "real" history of the past 60 years. Ah, but why should such a wonderful thing ever stop??

We could argue about "why", but the fact is, it looks as if it has stopped, or is in the process of doing so.

I could simply repeat what every economics student ever heard as a freshman, "There is no free lunch", but there will surely be those who come forward, and would prefer to recite a litany of "capitalist" greed instead.

But, there really is no "instead". It's all part of the SAME insane, totally unsustainable "utopian" world that our masters have brought us into.

Alas, it is NOT the Promised Land! What it is, is what some in this thread have been talking about. It is a "phase" of major destabilization that will likely lead to war. And like it's giant economic fore horse, the intended war will also be a giant.

So why bring up this "conspiracy" stuff? "Can't we just talk about..."

Really, the global conspiracy IS the proper context for judging the matter. None of this occurs in a vacuum, and certainly, very little happens by chance.

On with the next phase then!

What they sold us as our precious evolving "utopia", with the ever more improved welfare state just over the horizon, is in fact going to turn to ashes in our mouths. Instead, we will get what was always planned to be our lot: The Plantation.

No worries! On this Planation of the future, you will still enjoy your precious welfare state! Yes, they will feed you! And house you. And clothe you. But PLEASE don't become a slacker. You wouldn't like what happens to slackers.

I could continue on, about Marx, his masters, these plans for your enslavement that have been around now fo a long time...BUT, enough for now...

JR



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


The welfare state has helped to vastly reduce poverty in most of the developed nations of the world today.

en.wikipedia.org...

We know there's no such thing as a free lunch. That's what the taxes are for.

Those who continue to label the United States (or any other nation in the world at this moment in time) as 'Communist' is abusing terms. The US, and to a lesser degree pretty much all the developed nations of the world today are essentially oligarchies with various democratic and corporate elements which utilise mainly centre-right broadly Keynesian economic policies.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Haha what JR said. It cannot be denied that the current system is nothing more than a farm where the farmers pacify and domesticate the livestock with goodies and promise of future goodies. Meanwhile the farmer sharpens his butches knife.

Harvest time is upon us, and still some lick their masters hand lovingly as they are ushered into the slaughterhouse. Some of us smell the blood already but our fellow cattle tell us that our excitement will sour the cows milk! But its not the milk the farmer is after this time, no, this time its the meat.

Great post JR.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 



"Those who continue to label the United States (or any other nation in the world at this moment in time) as 'Communist' is abusing terms. "

www.libertyzone.com...

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

ect...

Must be tiring for you Statists. You know, the intellectual yoga you have to engage in daily in order to defend your dying and intrinsically violent ideology.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   


"The welfare state has helped to vastly reduce poverty in most of the
developed nations of the world today."


Ah yes, selective poverty reduction, through the redistribution of wealth.

I agree that poverty has in fact been reduced in the "developed countries". Could even be some reduction in some of the poorest parts of the globe as well, although it could be argued that it came at considerable cost. But I already touched on the tragic "contribution" of the Third World in my above post.

But, putting that aside for the moment, was "poverty reduction" due to the blossoming welfare state, or perhaps in spite of it? Let's see. During this post-WW2 period, what else did we see? Well, for one, we saw technology explode, like never before in history. It seemed as if each new year brought more unbelievable advances. Many of these advances resulted in unexpected efficiences, such as the internet for example.

I wonder, what "percentage" of global poverty reduction would have been due to the leaps in technology, and what percentage (positive or negative) would have been due to the reduction in productivity incentives, through a scheme of escalating taxation?

It's interesting. One could imagine that a "benefit" could somehow accrue from a "negative" set of incentives, such as progressive taxation, impacting the over all economy. But to be honest, should we not simultaneously expect to off-set such a thing with what one has unquestionably "lost" in the process? Some seem to agree that there is no free lunch, so, probably not terribly controversial. Sadly, foregone opportunities are not easily quantifyable, perhaps we'll never know exactly what was thrown away, but I would hope everyone would agree, it's an important part of a more complete picture.



"We know there's no such thing as a free lunch. That's what the taxes are for."


Really? So, it is the taxes that pay for the welfare state? OK then, things like technology, and the burden placed upon the Third World, let's put them both aside now...

First, the global welfare state that has emerged in the West is in fact far too expensive for taxes to ever pay for. Yes, it's complicated. The politics involved is one obvious factor, almost the proverbial joke in the US, but politicians will always default to a "deficit" approach, since taxes are always unpopular.

And what we observe actually confirms this. In every "developed" nation, more is spent, than is taken in. And it has gone on for many years now.

I would like to stop and ask the readers to try and imagine how such a state of affairs could be? WHO exactly is "paying" for these deficits, year after year?

Perhaps some have heard the term "trade deficit" as well. Oh sure, the average person on the street would have no reason to know how any of this could be important, but here will will find part of our answer.

In China, and other developing nations, what we find is a vast source of cheap labor. The goods that they produce are "cheap" (to the Westerner). In the US, the Wal-Marts overflow with this "cheap".

What is really happening is that nations like China have agreed to take our "dollars" (Pounds,Euros), in exchange for their goods. As many know, today these nations hold huge dollar "reserves", but what are those dollars going to be "worth", when they try to cash in, especially in the USA, where they can be spent for "real" things, finally competing with that voracious consumer, who never thought the party would end?

And so, the ugly spectre of "inflation" will eventually rear it's head, as trillions of dollars flood the world, and chase "too few goods". Even in the deleveraging "deflationary" environment of today, such a force is working it's way to the front of the line, and will eventually be felt, by everyone.

The result will be what's called, "default" (as in the kind that occurs when one is bankrupt). At some point, China and Japan will realize that they are at huge risk if they continue to hold dollars, and will want to "diversify". This they are already doing, although carefully, because if any one of these nations should try to beat the other to the exit, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down prematurely.

I know, perhaps too much for this thread, so let's move on...



"Those who continue to label the United States (or any other nation in
the world at this moment in time) as 'Communist' is abusing terms."


I will concede that there is a distinct inflamatory element in any use of the infamous word "communist". And yet, if anyone read my reasoning for it's legitimate application (as Neo has certainly noticed), it would be harder to disagree.

Namely, that the "planks" of communism do seem to have taken hold. Not a theory, not maybe, but they are here! Sure, one might argue that: "No truely communist nation has ever existed!" Granted. And yet, what would be the point of retreating to theoretical postions, when we look back on such a bloody history of "preliminaries", already?



"The US, and to a lesser degree pretty much all the developed nations of the world today are essentially oligarchies with various democratic and corporate elements which utilise mainly centre-right broadly Keynesian economic policies."


OK. And, if someone else came along and tried to correct this statement with fine points, and argue that in fact more precisely we have a "plutocracy" instead, and that "centre-right" today, would have been considered rather "left" only 20 years ago, then what?

And if another should point out the terrible failures of Keynesian economics in Great Depression I, which had already justly consigned the charlatan to the dustbin, would we want to stand up and applaude him today, as we teeder on the brink of Great Depression II?

In short, have we done anyone a real service by splitting hairs, when the FACT is, we are already a good 80% of the way to what we already know is very, very bad news for the human race?

I go back to my recommendation that we try an approach that has everyone on the same page, instead of introducing new vocabulary! Let's stick to terms people are familiar with, such as the "welfare state", that way we will get input from a wider base, instead of intimidating the less knowledgeable.

AGAIN, the "welfare state" is a dismal failure, when seen in it's proper perspective.

JR



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 



The politics involved is one obvious factor, almost the proverbial joke in the US, but politicians will always default to a "deficit" approach, since taxes are always unpopular.


This is not the fault of the Welfare state but arguably of democracy in general.


I will concede that there is a distinct inflamatory element in any use of the infamous word "communist". And yet, if anyone read my reasoning for it's legitimate application (as Neo has certainly noticed), it would be harder to disagree.


Marxism advocates the removal of the State.


OK. And, if someone else came along and tried to correct this statement with fine points, and argue that in fact more precisely we have a "plutocracy" instead, and that "centre-right" today, would have been considered rather "left" only 20 years ago, then what?


In the US, maybe. Western Europe (and this trend has been extremely prevalent in the UK.) has drifted consistently to the right since the end of the Cold War.


AGAIN, the "welfare state" is a dismal failure, when seen in it's proper perspective.


I disagree.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by time91
* Heavy Progressive Income Tax.
* Central Bank.
* Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation.
* Government Control of Education.

We're on our way...Just posted this but I'll repost it.




Yeah. Ignore the OP, don't research, just keep posting the same debunked drivel.

"This guy who used to work for the KGB said this, therefore it must be true!" Argument from Authority is still a logical fallacy, no matter how many times that video is posted.

You're part of the problem.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by LeftWingLarry

Taxation without permission is theft. Lets at least use the proper terms.


Yes, let's.

Your local voters elect a representative, who then votes for or against tax increases/cuts. Therefore, you are giving your permission by participating. You don't get to opt out just because the "wrong guy" gets elected, or because he votes for or against things you do/don't support.

Now, if you want to withdraw from this agreement, all you have to do is leave the country and renounce your citizenship. It's very simple.

Seriously, though those two quoted sentences are hilarious. Asking that we use "proper terms" after calling taxation "theft" is cognitive dissonance in the extreme.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LeftWingLarry
 


Here is what you should know. I, and millions of other Americans, will not join, participate in, or be subject to any form of communism. Period. It's really that simple. When I say that, I mean it in the most literal sense.
First, this government will be radically altered, beginning in November, 2010. To beleive otherwise, one must ignore any objective measure of public sentiment. Second, I and millions of others do in fact have boundaries. We will protect our rights with whatever means necessary. For the government to intrude one step further into the lives of citizens will be one step too far, and will result in the biggest rebellion since the civil war.
Obama having shown a compulsion to immerse this nation into marxism is eliciting a severe reaction. When his term is complete, should he finish it without impeachment or revolution, he will be vanquished as was Jimmy Carter. Many moderates, having witnessed firsthand the implication of installing a marxist muslim, and his mother-in-law into the white house, will run like hell from future Obama successors. Obama's political career is essentially over now.
That being said, you can tape a red star on the back of your prius, hang a picture of the dear leader over your bed and buy all the goofy light bulbs you can stand. You can give all your money to the UN and tell your friends to be more "europeanish and global" if you like. But facts are facts. In three years, the mexicans will again live in mexico, we'll wee wee all over the UN, and Obama, I suspect, will be on trial. States will have long since told the Federal Government where to stick their health care bill, and once again, if the abject failures of the world want to steal everyones wealth, they'll need a weapon, which, thanks to those who will fight to defend the constitution, will still be on sale at Academy Sports and local gunshops everywhere. I drink your milkshake.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 



The politics involved is one obvious factor, almost the proverbial joke in the US, but politicians will always default to a "deficit" approach, since taxes are always unpopular.


This is not the fault of the Welfare state but arguably of democracy in general.


I will concede that there is a distinct inflamatory element in any use of the infamous word "communist". And yet, if anyone read my reasoning for it's legitimate application (as Neo has certainly noticed), it would be harder to disagree.


Marxism advocates the removal of the State.


OK. And, if someone else came along and tried to correct this statement with fine points, and argue that in fact more precisely we have a "plutocracy" instead, and that "centre-right" today, would have been considered rather "left" only 20 years ago, then what?


In the US, maybe. Western Europe (and this trend has been extremely prevalent in the UK.) has drifted consistently to the right since the end of the Cold War.


AGAIN, the "welfare state" is a dismal failure, when seen in it's proper perspective.


I disagree.


Well, four lines can say so much! The implication of your first line is that the welfare state is not as compatible with "democracy" as perhaps many would think.

Interestingly, I tend to agree. However, it might not surprise me to find that if you were to choose between the two, you might more easily jettison democracy, in favor of the welfare state. In doing so, one would certainly solve the incompatibility issue, but at what cost?

Your second line is one I anticipated in my previous post. It's what's known as a retreat to the theoretical. Yes, many are likely familiar with some Marxist theory, and that Marx apparently thought the State would melt away after the triumph of the proletariat, it would no longer be needed. Personally, I doubt that the hard-working, and intelligent son of the rabbi (turned Lutheran), would be that gullible. And yet, we can read about it in his Manifesto. My conclusion is that it was an obvious piece of propaganda, since the idea is ludicrous on it's face. But, in that case, why even mention it?

And so I agree again, official Marxism does indeed advocate (actually, it "predicts"), the removal of the state. But, it isn't anything anyone takes seriously, not even the most "communist" of communists. The actual, real application of what people generally refer to as "communism" would be much more to the point, than bringing up Marxist theory, especially that most fanciful tail-end of it (which no one believes in).

As for your third line, making distinctions between the US and the UK, that's fine. The UK was indeed farther down the road when old Margaret Thatcher finally arrived on the scene, to slow their "progress" in that direction. In that sense, again, agreed.

Lastly, you "disagree" that the welfare state is a failure, which is a way of saying it has been a success. I would ask, for whom exactly?

As I pointed out in my previous posts, we may have registered some progress when it comes to a reduction in poverty, in the developed nations (few would deny that), but to boldly assert that this was due to the dawning of the modern welfare state, is to ignore the complexity of such an issue., and to give credit where little to none is due.

I raised several issues regarding this previously, and yet there are still more issues to be raised, for a more comprehensive treatment. No disrespect intended, but the matter is not as simple as looking out your window, observing your neighbors, and concluding, "All is well..." Yes, Smith may be unemployed, and still eating. Yes, in days gone by, he may have had to spend less time in the pub, as an unemployed person. But, without even getting into the possibility that the man is actually in a worse state as a result (since he seldom looks for work anymore), this would hardly add up to a victorious welfare state.

Again, I might ask, for whom is it working? What of the Third World? I dared not use the term "dollar hegemony" before, because I had hoped to keep things at a level where more might feel welcome making a contribution, because many people do in fact still have their heads on straight when it comes to these issues. But I might recommend looking it up when you have a moment.

The world we live in today, with increased prosperity for the West, has come at a price. Millions have had to die, in slavery, so the West could achieve some of their goals. From a moral standpoint, this is reprehensible. We may enjoy a better quality of life, but for the millions of bodies we had to climb over, the quality of their lives, whatever it was, is what we should honestly recon with.

If such a state of affairs was somehow "sustainable", perhaps no one would even speak of it. "Our" lives would simply improve indefinitely! But, it is far from being sustainable, and many of the slave nations are beginning to wake up.

I realize, much of this can be quite controversial, but I believe it's high time it's at least allowed into the conversation.

And what of technology? Who among us would dare to step up to the microphone, and announce to their audience that they sincerely thought it was of little or no importance over the past 60 years? My friend, you would be laughed off the stage! Let's be honest here. First, we need to admit that technology needs to receive some credit for the reduction in poverty. Next, we would be doing ourselves a great service by simply trying to assign a "percentage" that is attributable to it, versus the implementation of welfare. Would you think 20%? 50% even? Whatever your figure, my point is, it's got to be far greater than zero. Do not ignore the role of technology.

So many words, and yet, the question here is whether or not the welfare state is a success, or not.

No one should have much confidence in simplistic answers, to complex questions. If we would like to honestly look at these highly politicized issues, and draw valuable conclusions, we must be prepared to accept that the in-depth answers could not have ever possibly squared with our initial conceptions, which were based on too little info, or worse, based upon propaganda.

Let us all "Deny Ignorance"...

JR



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Hmmm lets see. Ever vote for an income tax? Was that ever on the ballot? How about inflation, caused by state sanctioned central banking? No? Hmmm how the myriad of hundreds of thousands of lines of tax code that we must adhere to under threat of violence? Ever vote for them? Any chance you can abstain from paying? What would happen if you did?

I do not support your 'state' (guys with guns) but I'm forced to pay for it, heavily. The sky is blue, spades a spade, involuntary taxation is theft. But thanks for attempting to overcomplicate an issue a toddler understands! Always a revered past time of a statist.



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
First time poster here,

Karl Marx was quoted as saying "If this is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist." He said this in reference to the political developments that were occurring in the name of Marxism and communism during the end of the 19th Century in Europe.

Although many sections within the communist manifesto remain as true today as when it was written in 1848, other sections have now become outdated. The world has changed a lot over the past 150 years since the communist manifesto was written. What seemed appropriate ideas for revolutionary change back then, do not fit in today's world. Marx would likely be the first to encourage modern day development of a working political economic theory.

In response to people who differentiate between socialism and communism; there is none. During the time when Marx and Engles wrote the Communist Manifesto the word socialism was used to describe various co-operative experiments of different kinds. To differentiate themselves from these Utopians, the group who wrote the Communist Manifesto used the word communism. Back then, however, the two terms were interchangeable, and Marx did indeed use both in reference to the same thing. The idea that socialism is a precluding phase towards communism is one that is not in the least bit Marxist. It was Lenin who distorted the writings of Marx in order to advocate his own brand of revolution.

Please do not mix Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Guevera, Castro, Mao Zedong, and others with the likes of Marxist ideology. These people, and their ideologies have commonalities with Marx's ideologies inasmuch as they used his name to describe their brand of twisted and perverted politics. These revolutionaries perverted true marxism, with their lack of understanding of the theory of political economy elucidated by Marx in his voluminous work, Das Kapital.

The basis of Marx's vision of communist/socialist society is this;


The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole.

such a society must be one without social classes, states, central governments, money, trade, wage-labour, or employment, and must include voluntary labour and free access to all goods and services produced by society for all, based on their own self-determined needs.

Cheers

Pinko



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 



Interestingly, I tend to agree. However, it might not surprise me to find that if you were to choose between the two, you might more easily jettison democracy, in favor of the welfare state. In doing so, one would certainly solve the incompatibility issue, but at what cost?

Me personally? Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions.


And so I agree again, official Marxism does indeed advocate (actually, it "predicts"), the removal of the state. But, it isn't anything anyone takes seriously, not even the most "communist" of communists. The actual, real application of what people generally refer to as "communism" would be much more to the point, than bringing up Marxist theory, especially that most fanciful tail-end of it (which no one believes in).


Anarcho-Communism takes it seriously. The fact that nobody else does does not mean we should redefine the word 'Communism'.


Lastly, you "disagree" that the welfare state is a failure, which is a way of saying it has been a success. I would ask, for whom exactly?

I wouldn't say it's been a total success. It just hasn't been such a big failure as you like to make out.

It's been a success for families who continue to require welfare programs just to get by.


As I pointed out in my previous posts, we may have registered some progress when it comes to a reduction in poverty, in the developed nations (few would deny that), but to boldly assert that this was due to the dawning of the modern welfare state, is to ignore the complexity of such an issue., and to give credit where little to none is due.


The welfare state continues, to this day, to help the poor and generally disadvantaged in this country. Technology has obviously had its place in lifting some people out of poverty, as have a variety of other factors. One of these is undoubtedly the provision of government welfare programs.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Hmmm lets see. Ever vote for an income tax? Was that ever on the ballot? How about inflation, caused by state sanctioned central banking? No? Hmmm how the myriad of hundreds of thousands of lines of tax code that we must adhere to under threat of violence? Ever vote for them? Any chance you can abstain from paying? What would happen if you did?

I do not support your 'state' (guys with guns) but I'm forced to pay for it, heavily. The sky is blue, spades a spade, involuntary taxation is theft. But thanks for attempting to overcomplicate an issue a toddler understands! Always a revered past time of a statist.


You can vote for people who will reduce (or even do away with) the income tax and verbally endorse (and even finance) your preferred candidate. In the mean time, If you abstain from paying, you'll likely go to prison.

If you don't like this, you can vote with your feet, you can go into full rebellion against the government (which will likely lead to temporary inconveniences such as incarceration) or you can put up and shut up.

The same goes for all political issues in a representative democracy. People only vote on the issues themselves in a direct democracy.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 





How about inflation, caused by state sanctioned central banking?


You're making some good points Neo, and while I agree with you that they should be simple enough for the toddler to understand, the fact is, there seem to be a lot of people who are not understanding.

Which is probably why this massive fraud of central banking works so well. The fewer who understand how they are stealing our productivity, the better (for them).

Of course everyone has heard of "inflation". But even the word itself was conceived in iniquity, since it pretty much means the very opposite of it's normal intuitive sense. If we lived in one of the nations of Orwell's 1984, and we were fluent in Newspeak, perhaps it would all be fine, but instead, we're stuck here, trying to explain these "simple" things to a seemingly large percentage of the population.

"Inflation" of course really means the shrinking purchasing power of whatever fiat currency your nation is saddled with. "Fiat" means it has "value", because those in power say so. You may have heard the term "legal tender". Another one of their gentle terms that really says, "take our paper, or else."

But when we think about paper money that buys less and less over time, does it not imply that it's "value" must be going "somewhere"? How exactly does it lose value, since it would be absurd to imagine that it simply evaporated?

This is indeed a monstrous fraud that is going on globally. But it's quite clear by the responses in this thread that people fail to connect what is going on with the central banks issuing currency, and the issue of "taxation", which most have been programmed to keep in the same compartment with the rest of government "rights". So, they never quite see that the left hand is taking away, while they were distracted by the right.

Of course, even after my small attempt here to add a bit more explanation to the important issue you raised, my guess is that very few will be intrigued enough to look into it, and fewer still will really see just how important the issue is.

The famous economist and NWO charlatan John Maynard Keynes, is often quoted about this very matter, and it probably wouldn't hurt to throw it in again...

“By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”

He and his masters probably enjoyed a good laugh about it all...

I'm guessing that if he were still alive, he would be quite pleased about the current state of affairs.

JR



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 



Interestingly, I tend to agree. However, it might not surprise me to find that if you were to choose between the two, you might more easily jettison democracy, in favor of the welfare state. In doing so, one would certainly solve the incompatibility issue, but at what cost?

Me personally? Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions.


And so I agree again, official Marxism does indeed advocate (actually, it "predicts"), the removal of the state. But, it isn't anything anyone takes seriously, not even the most "communist" of communists. The actual, real application of what people generally refer to as "communism" would be much more to the point, than bringing up Marxist theory, especially that most fanciful tail-end of it (which no one believes in).


Anarcho-Communism takes it seriously. The fact that nobody else does does not mean we should redefine the word 'Communism'.





Apologies LeftWing if I assumed too much, but there are times when a seemingly bold statement is made, and people will perhaps rush to judgment, taking the statement at face value. Obviously it must not be what you really intended, so I should show again exactly what you did say prior to my response above...




This is not the fault of the Welfare state but arguably of democracy in general.



Arguably. And actually, I would hardly argue that democracy is problem-free, obviously there are many things that plague any attempts at "democracy". Perhaps it was the close juxtaposition of the terms, after that word "fault". Either way, I think a simple reading of the sentence justified my response, although obviously you meant it differently than it sounded (to me).

Do you mind me asking why you would bring up a term like "Anarcho-Communism"? To me, it is yet another retreat to the theoretical, and not terribly germane to the real issues here. Maybe they bear revisiting.

This thread is about "Communism for Dummies". No, I would not favor redefining terms, I rather think that PinkoCannuck already made a very nice contribution regarding the matter, nicely clearing up the usual misconception that Socialism is somehow an earlier phase of Communism, when in fact it was all the same to Marx.

But we're getting a lot of what I would call the "theoretical", perhaps even a bit of the "academic" introduction of new terms as well, and while interesting in many ways, I am tempted to return your mild accusation that I might want to redefine a term. To me it looks like it's the other way around.

Why so? Because after this brief exchange, I persist in a desire to use terms that people already understand, such as "welfare state". You however, have brought up odd theoretical ideas, such as how ideal Communism has no "state", and now terms such as "Anarcho-Communism".

Going back to the title of the thread, how have we helped our "dummy" who may be reading this, who is honestly trying to figure out what the whole thing is about?

And what IS it about? Could be all over the board (arguably). As the thread has developed, it has so far embraced the popular notion of the "welfare state", understandably. But we simply cannot miss the biggest elephant in the room here, and that's the popular conception, based on actual history, that "Communism" may in fact be "bad".

Treating of this matter, let's call it the "negative" side of Communism, is vastly more legitimate than introducing theoretical ideas right and left, that could eventually have the effect of "redefining" the word, and certainly in the mean time, simply confusing people.

Yes, it's all arguable, but this word "Communism" continues to evoke some degree of horror today for good reason. This is our history, we can't rewrite it, redefine it, forget the bad parts, by now emphasizing some vague notions about what Marx really meant, or what the ideal should be. Sure, there is the ideal. And then there is reality. By choosing to emphasize the one over the other, we seem to be willingly playing into the old propaganda, that history has already shown was either incorrect, or outright lies.

Should we not all tread a bit more carefully concerning this matter? When we consider the enormous number of victims that this thing called "Communism" has claimed, how should I put it?... Should we not have more "respect"?

Ah, but there was a "good" side to Nazism too! And perhaps Hitler really was misunderstood. And if we read Hegel, we would probably find that the most ideal aspects of Nazism were wonderful! And Josef Mengele's experiments, though unfortunate for his victims, still resulted in a gain in knowledge for mankind! Surely we should discuss these things, otherwise, the average person could come away thinking that Nazism was all bad!

The above exaggeration is only here to make my point clear, and is not directed at anyone in particular. I would hope any reader sees what I see.

"Communism". No, let's not redefine terms. Let's stare it in the eyes. Let's tell our children about it, as Russian and Cambodian parents still do. And if someone should come forward to make a mockery of the real tragic experiences of these people, let us keep their feet to the fire. No, they shall not send us down that road again. We refuse.

JR



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 




"You can vote for people who will reduce (or even do away with) the income tax and verbally endorse (and even finance) your preferred candidate. In the mean time, If you abstain from paying, you'll likely go to prison. "


OOOooO so I can beg the masters to perhaps give me back a small scraping of what has been stolen from me? How generous of them! They must really *care*.



"If you don't like this, you can vote with your feet, you can go into full rebellion against the government (which will likely lead to temporary inconveniences such as incarceration) or you can put up and shut up."


Youre right, pesky slaves wanting freedom should and will meet the full violence of the state. I guess 'temporary inconveniences' is a little statist joke of yours? Hilarious! It certainly is a laughing matter that my life will be destroyed if I chose to act upon my belief in *freedom* and not pay my protection money. Good one.

Shouldnt that read 'pay up and shut up.'?

So since you have no moral highground...you swing your club at anyone who would act against your precious Big Brother; you are willing to initiate violence against the innocent. (which makes me question your stated concern for the poor...how concerned can you be if you dont value their very freedom?) You dont have the legal high ground, since you have no signed documents allowing the extortion of funds from your fellow humans...(when did I sign this social contract? wheres my lawyer...) what high ground do you have, exactly?

Oh right, youve got the high ground with the big gun emplacements and megaphone on it. Propaganda and the whip. Thats all you have to keep your fragile little ideology from being swept into the dustbin of history where it belongs, right next to Nazism and every other 'ism' that claims one group of people know whats best for us all.





[edit on 3-8-2010 by Neo_Serf]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
[edit on 3-8-2010 by Neo_Serf]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
[edit on 3-8-2010 by Neo_Serf]





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join