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.

 

Are you a Communist, and if so, why?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Are there any Communists here on ATS? I'm not looking for the revolutionary types, but I am looking for those that have families, are hard working and are decent, everyday people. If you believe in the communist ideology then tell me why? Why is communism so great?


For the purpose of full disclosure, I am a conservative libertarian. I believe in the Constitution. I believe in an almighty God, although I despise organized religion. I believe that rights are natural and divine in nature and that rights are granted by God and not government. I believe in individual sovereignty, freedom and liberty and that it is the governments only job to act in the best interest of preserving individual sovereignty, freedom and liberty. I believe in Capitalism and the free market.

I would like to have an intelligent, intellectual, honest, open and RESPECTFUL debate on why communism/socialism is the best system. Why is it better than capitalism? For those of you on both sides of the issue that are incapable of providing constructive conversation and can only resort to insults and disrespect please seek attention elsewhere.




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Communism is inherently "bad" due to the fact that it fails to take human nature into consideration. It is also based on force and governmental theft. To all according to their needs from all according to their ability. I mean seriously, why would I bust my hump just to make the same as someone who cannot or will not do as much as I do? I prefer to keep the fruit of my labor for my own use. Thus the government must compel me at gun point to surrender my earnings for others to use. How is this different from slavery?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
My ideas on how a country/society should be could be considered 'communist' however I do not associate myself with communism, anarchism or socialism.
We don't need multiple philosophies to explain to us the practice of sharing the earth and it's gifts to humanity. All it takes is a little bit of willpower



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Communism is inherently "bad" due to the fact that it fails to take human nature into consideration. It is also based on force and governmental theft. To all according to their needs from all according to their ability. I mean seriously, why would I bust my hump just to make the same as someone who cannot or will not do as much as I do? I prefer to keep the fruit of my labor for my own use. Thus the government must compel me at gun point to surrender my earnings for others to use. How is this different from slavery?


I couldn't have said it better myself.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Maybe your OP should have been is anyone a Marxist? as we know the Communists hijacked his teachings for their own benefit.

Was John Steinberg a Communist or an idealist, I ask because his books have been a huge influence on my outlook on life.

Edited to say, said this wrong Marx was a true Communist, those greedy for power hijaked his teachings.






edit on 14-4-2011 by dizzylizzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
My ideas on how a country/society should be could be considered 'communist' however I do not associate myself with communism, anarchism or socialism.
We don't need multiple philosophies to explain to us the practice of sharing the earth and it's gifts to humanity. All it takes is a little bit of willpower



What do you mean by sharing the Earth? I think I know what you mean but I don't want to assume, so please elaborate. Also, how do we go about doing that without infringing on personal property rights? The keystone in a free society is personal property and the ability to own land.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
Maybe your OP should have been is anyone a Marxist? as we know the Communists hijacked his teachings for their own benefit.

Was John Steinberg a Communist or an idealist, I ask because his books have been a huge influence on my outlook on life.

Edited to say, said this wrong Marx was a true Communist, those greedy for power hijaked his teachings.






edit on 14-4-2011 by dizzylizzy because: (no reason given)


To me Communism and Marxism are the same thing. They are synonymous.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Communism is inherently "bad" due to the fact that it fails to take human nature into consideration. It is also based on force and governmental theft. To all according to their needs from all according to their ability. I mean seriously, why would I bust my hump just to make the same as someone who cannot or will not do as much as I do? I prefer to keep the fruit of my labor for my own use. Thus the government must compel me at gun point to surrender my earnings for others to use. How is this different from slavery?


I would add that it not only fails to take human nature into account but doesn’t believe in the concept of human nature in the first place and the communist’s attempt to reprogram what they believe are entirely learned traits they commit the worst kinds of atrocities.

Read up on the early history of English industrialist Robert Owen and his attempt to reporgram society by removing toddlers from thier parents.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


That really depends, are you refering to communism in the American red scare variety. Or are you refering to communism in it's idealistic, stateless utopian variety. If you were refering to the latter then they are essentially synonomous, however to compare Marxism to Stalin would be quite a stretch, no matter how much Stalin asserted that he was a true Marxist.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


That really depends, are you refering to communism in the American red scare variety. Or are you refering to communism in it's idealistic, stateless utopian variety. If you were refering to the latter then they are essentially synonomous, however to compare Marxism to Stalin would be quite a stretch, no matter how much Stalin asserted that he was a true Marxist.


I am talking about the economic system/ideology called communism. I am talking about what Marx describes in his Communist Manifesto. I'm not talking about violence or war at all.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by lifeissacred
My ideas on how a country/society should be could be considered 'communist' however I do not associate myself with communism, anarchism or socialism.
We don't need multiple philosophies to explain to us the practice of sharing the earth and it's gifts to humanity. All it takes is a little bit of willpower



What do you mean by sharing the Earth? I think I know what you mean but I don't want to assume, so please elaborate. Also, how do we go about doing that without infringing on personal property rights? The keystone in a free society is personal property and the ability to own land.
Even more important than land ownership is ownership of self. Ownership of your life and your time. When it comes down to it, we trade irreplaceable time out of our lives for the things we need to live. When socialists and communists decide that they can confiscate the fruit of my labor, they are claiming ownership of my time and thus my life. This is SLAVERY.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


That really depends, are you refering to communism in the American red scare variety. Or are you refering to communism in it's idealistic, stateless utopian variety. If you were refering to the latter then they are essentially synonomous, however to compare Marxism to Stalin would be quite a stretch, no matter how much Stalin asserted that he was a true Marxist.


Stalin was a tyrannical opportunists whose arivial onto the political scene in the Soviet Union was paved by the tyrannical nature of the Bolshiviks who preceded him.

Or to quote Orwell: “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish a dictatorship”



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
THere is nothing inherently wrong with communism. The marriage of a socioeconomic philosophy with statism is the problem. Just as there is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism, although there are many here that complain of rampant capitalism affecting the equitable treatment of We the People relative to the big money or "elite" interests that seemingly impact our daily lives. Communal enclaves work in practice as evidenced by not only indigenous tribal cultures but also by religious enclaves (monks, monasteries, etc.). Statism in the embodiment of these socioeconomic cultural phenomena is what is "wrong" or "evil".

Obviously, I do not consider myself a communist, socialist, capitalist, democrat, republican, or self identify with any of the statist influenced labels that supposedly describe our various cultures. Here is my bottom line: within my enclave, my castle, my estate all is shared by all - this could be described as "communism" if you wish.
BTW my enclave includes my immediate family and four canines as well as an undetermined number of wild creatures inhabiting a small acreage - we all share by necessity although I prefer the bugs and such stay out of the house!

ganjoa



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


To answer both of your posts, by sharing the earth I mean. 'No man should be able to buy or sell the earth for private gain'
I believe the planet belongs to everyone and that everyone is entitled to their fair share of the land and it's wealth. The earth has enough resources to sustain us all indefinately and equally as it should be. However we see nowadays that the majority of the population are exploited by a few.

The popular view of capitalism is that it makes everyone richer, whilst it may make some richer, ultimately it leads to the domination of the majority by a few as I stated earlier. That would make me essentially 'Anti-Capitalist' (however as a disclaimer I must affirm my support for private enterprise when it works in the interests of the community)

When reading Marxist literature I would agree with alot of the points made, however identifying myself solely as a Marxist, communist, anarchist or any other ist/ism is wholly unnescessary in my opinion. Ultimately i feel humans naturally have very simple desires, these being the obvious, food, water, shelter, security etc as well as the more subjective i.e. love, community, identity etc. By freeing people from the current system of 'wage slavery' as some people call it and allowing total freedom within the limits of reason i.e. reducing the responsibility of government to upholding the laws of humanity i.e. protecting life and property and due process for those who break these laws as well as protecting the working class from exploitation, the people of the world will find their best system of co-existence and prosperity.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by lifeissacred
My ideas on how a country/society should be could be considered 'communist' however I do not associate myself with communism, anarchism or socialism.
We don't need multiple philosophies to explain to us the practice of sharing the earth and it's gifts to humanity. All it takes is a little bit of willpower



What do you mean by sharing the Earth? I think I know what you mean but I don't want to assume, so please elaborate. Also, how do we go about doing that without infringing on personal property rights? The keystone in a free society is personal property and the ability to own land.
Even more important than land ownership is ownership of self. Ownership of your life and your time. When it comes down to it, we trade irreplaceable time out of our lives for the things we need to live. When socialists and communists decide that they can confiscate the fruit of my labor, they are claiming ownership of my time and thus my life. This is SLAVERY.



Great point... absolutely agree.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ganjoa
THere is nothing inherently wrong with communism. The marriage of a socioeconomic philosophy with statism is the problem. Just as there is nothing inherently wrong with capitalism, although there are many here that complain of rampant capitalism affecting the equitable treatment of We the People relative to the big money or "elite" interests that seemingly impact our daily lives. Communal enclaves work in practice as evidenced by not only indigenous tribal cultures but also by religious enclaves (monks, monasteries, etc.). Statism in the embodiment of these socioeconomic cultural phenomena is what is "wrong" or "evil".

Obviously, I do not consider myself a communist, socialist, capitalist, democrat, republican, or self identify with any of the statist influenced labels that supposedly describe our various cultures. Here is my bottom line: within my enclave, my castle, my estate all is shared by all - this could be described as "communism" if you wish.
BTW my enclave includes my immediate family and four canines as well as an undetermined number of wild creatures inhabiting a small acreage - we all share by necessity although I prefer the bugs and such stay out of the house!

ganjoa


The fact that within your estate all is shared by all is great. The distinction is that you have chosen to be that way. It was your free and sovereign choice to make and no one forced you to share. The same can be said for tribes and monasteries. The problem is when government must force you to part with what you have earned to give to someone else who had no part in earning it. There is no freedom or choice in that scenario.
edit on 14-4-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: grammar



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


To answer both of your posts, by sharing the earth I mean. 'No man should be able to buy or sell the earth for private gain'
I believe the planet belongs to everyone and that everyone is entitled to their fair share of the land and it's wealth. The earth has enough resources to sustain us all indefinately and equally as it should be. However we see nowadays that the majority of the population are exploited by a few.

The popular view of capitalism is that it makes everyone richer, whilst it may make some richer, ultimately it leads to the domination of the majority by a few as I stated earlier. That would make me essentially 'Anti-Capitalist' (however as a disclaimer I must affirm my support for private enterprise when it works in the interests of the community)

When reading Marxist literature I would agree with alot of the points made, however identifying myself solely as a Marxist, communist, anarchist or any other ist/ism is wholly unnescessary in my opinion. Ultimately i feel humans naturally have very simple desires, these being the obvious, food, water, shelter, security etc as well as the more subjective i.e. love, community, identity etc. By freeing people from the current system of 'wage slavery' as some people call it and allowing total freedom within the limits of reason i.e. reducing the responsibility of government to upholding the laws of humanity i.e. protecting life and property and due process for those who break these laws as well as protecting the working class from exploitation, the people of the world will find their best system of co-existence and prosperity.


Thank you for elaborating. In theory you present a good and reasonable point of view, but so did Adam Smith in his book "Wealth of Nations" which is really what inspired our capitalist, free market system. The problem, or flaw with your point of view, as well as Adam Smith's is that they both assume that people will act with the utmost integrity and honor. I think that it is safe to say that a lot of people don't. In your system(for lack of a better word), what is to stop someone from taking what is yours, especially with the mindset that everything belongs to everyone. That may be great for some people, but there will always be those that seek what others have. There will always be greed and corruption, no matter the economic system in place, because that is just human nature. I think that the main idea of capitalism is to give everyone any equal opportunity at success without government or bureaucratic interference. Now that doesn't mean that everyone will have the same results, but at least they have equal opportunity.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


True, but at the same time, one has to accept the fact that those with money within the current capitalist system have infinite power compared to those without. For example, some of the hardest working people in America are also some of the poorest, those who work multiple jobs just to make ends meet, those who struggle to feed themselves or their families yet work so often they have no time of their own. Yet at the top of the 'pile' so to speak are those who merely inherited wealth, or in some cases moved a few numbers around on a stock exchange somewhere and are now reaping the benefits of very little effort.

Also, I would like to point out that I didn't mean that everything should belong to everyone, i meant that everyone has a right to a portion of this planet, a place which they could call their own, as well as, the right to experience the natural environment in all of it's beauty. I also meant that everyone had a right to the resources of this planet, which should be shared amongst all peoples of all nations instead of hoarded and wasted by the richest. When one looks at the amount of food, water and energy we in the west consume compared to some nations, it genuinely makes me sad that as a whole, our society is largely ignorant of the unnescessary suffering of so many people.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Im not a Commie but I do believe in the philosophy, Unfortunately as one of the posts above mentions human nature wont ever allow this way of life to be a reality....... The way things are now at least.

Humans are social creatures and work best in small tribes, most people now live in huge cities or even worse medium ones where we get lost in the clutter and feel disjointed. We see people all around us who we dont know who drive better cars than us or have better watches, shoes, TVs etc etc and we want more and feel we deserve more. In small groups everyone is accountable and resources are much more likely to be shared equally as it is much easier to be fair with someone who is in your face and not just a number or potential vote.
So I would say by default small groups of people are somewhat communist.

I personally consider the whole Capitalism vs Communism thing to be the political equivalent of BetaMax vs VHS.
Both pretty much the same but one had better PR and Marketing


The thing that everyone complains about with Communism is how everything ineveitably ends up in the hands of a select few, Ironically that is exactly what has happened within the system that most the complainers would say is the way forward, namely Capitalism


True Communism is a fairy tale... A beautiful one but a fairy tale never the less



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Communism is inherently "bad" due to the fact that it fails to take human nature into consideration. It is also based on force and governmental theft. To all according to their needs from all according to their ability. I mean seriously, why would I bust my hump just to make the same as someone who cannot or will not do as much as I do? I prefer to keep the fruit of my labor for my own use. Thus the government must compel me at gun point to surrender my earnings for others to use. How is this different from slavery?


I would add that it not only fails to take human nature into account but doesn’t believe in the concept of human nature in the first place and the communist’s attempt to reprogram what they believe are entirely learned traits they commit the worst kinds of atrocities.

Read up on the early history of English industrialist Robert Owen and his attempt to reporgram society by removing toddlers from thier parents.



And Capatalism does?

Doesn't this Capatalism we have programme all and sundry for a love of materialism?

As for children being taken from the parents, what about now when the majority of children are put into nursery because both parents have to work.

Capatalism is in mho no fairer than Communism, both want to control the population,



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join