I joined the Communist Party

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Yes, the US became prosperous after the raping of Europe and Japan during WWII.

Care to back that up with some hard evidence? Ever heard of the Marshall Plan? America pumped billions into Europe to rebuild after the war and after four years the European economies had surpassed their previous economies and enjoyed unprecedented prosperity in their histories for years to come!

America also pumped billions into rebuilding Japan and it became one of the leading economies of the world and first in Asia.

Please stop repeating ridiculous anti-american propaganda you are embarrassing yourselves! America has plenty of things to be angry at her about but WWII is not one of them!

The Marshall plan wasn't a gift that was pumped in, it was a loan that took the UK for example 50 years to pay off, including the interest. I'm not saying I dispute the need for it, but it was by no means a gift, please don't try and dress it up to look like one.

Of course it was it was both loans and grants to rebuild those countries. America was not obligated to do anything. When these countries were rebuilt to better then before the war and prospering why shouldn't they pay some of it back? Had America not done so Europe would have been decimated for decades to come. America did not start the war they did not exploit Europe they helped Europe in their worst hour of need. They were not obligated to help rebuild Europe but they did. They even helped their defeated enemies rebuild and those nations became their friends. But gee how terrible of them to make loans and wait till those countries we more prosperous then in anytime in their history to repay them...

The Marshall plan, just as GARIOA, consisted of aid both in the form of grants and in the form of loans.[68] Out of the total, 1.2 billion USD were loan-aid.[69]

Ireland which received 146.2 million USD through the Marshall plan, received 128.2 million USD as loans, and the remaining 18 million USD as grants.[70] By 1969 the Irish Marshal plan debt, which was still being repaid, amounted to 31 million pounds, out of a total Irish foreign debt of 50 million pounds.[71]

The UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans.[69] Unconnected to the Marshall plan the UK also received direct loans from the US amounting to 4.6 billion USD.[69] The proportion of Marshall plan loans versus Marshall plan grants was roughly 15% to 85% for both the UK and France.[72]

Germany, which up until the 1953 Debt agreement had to work on the assumption that all the Marshall plan aid was to be repaid, spent its funds very carefully. Payment for Marshall plan goods, "counterpart funds", were administered by the Reconstruction Credit Institute, which used the funds for loans inside Germany. In the 1953 Debt agreement the amount of Marshall plan aid that Germany was to repay was reduced to less than 1 billion USD.[73] This made the proportion of loans versus grants to Germany similar to that of France and the UK.[74]

The final German loan repayment was made in 1971.[75] Since Germany chose to repay the aid debt out of the German Federal budget, leaving the German ERP fund intact, the fund was able to continue its reconstruction work. By 1996 it had accumulated a value of 23 billion Deutsche Mark.[76]

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by hawkiye


Seriously, is that what you are taught in your schools about the Marshal Plan? That America (fanfare, please), the great and almighty and generous beyond description just cashed out billions of dollars and wares just because Europe would otherwise have failed?

Out of pure altruism?

Nope. Truman wanted a stronghold against the feared communist soviet union. Source (Wikipedia)

Originally posted by hawkiye
Please buy a water filer immediately and stop drinking tap water sodas and other highly processed drinks and food. Turn off CNN and the TV for a while. Look into doing a cleanse and try to eat as clean as you can.

Seriously you have made a serious mistake and bought the BS they have fed you. Your not thinking clearly to have joined such an organization and embraced their philosophy. You even admit your not sure so it sounds like you just want to be part of something. Join a club for a hobby or cause you are interested in to be part of something. This is not the way my friend.

Sorry your family has disowned you they should be loving you anyway and gently trying to persuade you to reconsider. Your fiance well I can understand how that would be a huge conflict in a relationship and she did not want to deal with it. Can't blame her.

Seriously man you need to reconsider.

Are you seriously suggesting that our media conspires to create COMMUNISTS????

That is literally the FURTHEST thing from the truth.

My god...

reply to post by brukernavn


So drop us a line when you move to Cuba or China or N. Korea...and give us your EXACT CO-ORDINATES.
Comrad.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by Wolf321

 

I agree with you 100%. Communism can ONLY work with a small population.

Ahh, but think about it everyone...

Isn't that how EVERY SYSTEM works best? With a small population?

I'd say yes.

Overpopulation has brought us massive hierarchies and thus mass corruption/tyranny/inequality/warfare/ecocide/etc. Looking towards the long-term, we must develop (and borrow) ways of living that are localized, tight-knit, communal, voluntary, horizontal, supportive/healthy, and sustainable. This is why I am, ultimately, an Anarchist.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Seriously, is that what you are taught in your schools about the Marshal Plan? That America (fanfare, please), the great and almighty and generous beyond description just cashed out billions of dollars and wares just because Europe would otherwise have failed?

Out of pure altruism?

Nope. Truman wanted a stronghold against the feared communist soviet union. Source (Wikipedia)

Wow I did not realize there was such an Anti-American sentiment in Germany these days. The anti-american propaganda is getting ridiculous. Is there a growing communist movement there now too? So you think Europe would have bounced right back without the Marshall plan? it was in everyone's best interest to rebuild the nations of Europe but you act like that was a bad thing.

The Communist tripe seems to really be spreading... That has been their MO through out history tell a romantic story about freedom and power to the people and then slam the bars of tyranny on them. But no this new generation says Mao Lenin and Stalin exploited communism we will to do it right. Do you geniuses realize that those guys told their people the same romantic stories about freedom and power to the people in their rise to power as you are repeating?

I have also lost the support of friends and family over my communist leanings.

One day we will see a change, most likely when capitalism has failed to feed the workers of the world.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


What do any of those countries have to do with this thread? I understand where you thought you were going with that statement, but in the end it just showed your ignorance.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by brukernavn

 

I was never into Johnny Cash, but thanks for being friendly.

I knew you were evil.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Sorry, I am just not into collectivist statism. That is what communism is and always will be.

Not true. Communism might be collective, as in people working together for a common goal, gosh how evil of them, but it is not statism.

Communism is the stage after the state has been removed.

You can have state-socialism, but socialism is not the state. Socialism is an economic system, not a political system.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin

Of course that stage has never been achieved and will never be achieved through force. Anarchism is just a revolutionary tool used by communists to achieve their goals. One can see anarchism being used as a tool today with all the riots and union protests going on around the world. We know that the multibillionaire Socialist Soros has bankrolled quite a few of those anarchist protests behind the scenes.
Every communist is anti-capitalist as well, even though it is wealthy industrialists and bankers bankrolling their efforts, as they did with the Bolsheviks. Read Antony Suttons book, "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution"

vho.org...

edit on 12-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

No.

George Soros is not bankrolling Anarchists.

He contributed SOME money to organizations that were involved with Occupy Wall Street, but this is a far cry from fully bankrolling these things.

EVEN SO! If a billionaire is bankrolling Anarchists... that means this billionaire is quite a bit different from the standard billionaire and wants to actually work against his own financial interests in doing what's right. It doesn't mean that he's some Communist dictator puppeteer... that notion is pure doublethink and has no roots in reality.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by Wolf321

 

I agree with you 100%. Communism can ONLY work with a small population.

Ahh, but think about it everyone...

Isn't that how EVERY SYSTEM works best? With a small population?

I'd say yes.

Overpopulation has brought us massive hierarchies and thus mass corruption/tyranny/inequality/warfare/ecocide/etc. Looking towards the long-term, we must develop (and borrow) ways of living that are localized, tight-knit, communal, voluntary, horizontal, supportive/healthy, and sustainable. This is why I am, ultimately, an Anarchist.

You mean like the small tight knit farming communities that built America where people looked out for each other? Everyone pulled their own weight but if someone was ill or injured they community would voluntarily help them till they could get back on their feet and the town assembly where everyone was an equal is were they decided things that affected the community and everyone was free to keep the fruits of their labors to do with as they pleased . Yes I agree.

You might enjoy reading an excerpt from our resident anarchist founding father Thomas Paine: Society is a Blessing, But Government is Evil

reply to post by hawkiye


Sure.

I think slowly but surely we're all coming to many of the same conclusions on the world we want.

Post-government, post-Capitalist, egalitarian, free, peaceful and localized.

Essentially? ANARCHISM.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Yes, the US became prosperous after the raping of Europe and Japan during WWII.

Care to back that up with some hard evidence? Ever heard of the Marshall Plan? America pumped billions into Europe to rebuild after the war and after four years the European economies had surpassed their previous economies and enjoyed unprecedented prosperity in their histories for years to come!

America also pumped billions into rebuilding Japan and it became one of the leading economies of the world and first in Asia.

Please stop repeating ridiculous anti-american propaganda you are embarrassing yourselves! America has plenty of things to be angry at her about but WWII is not one of them!

The Marshall plan wasn't a gift that was pumped in, it was a loan that took the UK for example 50 years to pay off, including the interest. I'm not saying I dispute the need for it, but it was by no means a gift, please don't try and dress it up to look like one.

Of course it was it was both loans and grants to rebuild those countries. America was not obligated to do anything.

I never suggested otherwise. The previous post seemed to suggest it was a gift, if you look at my post first before reacting I didn't suggest there was any obligation. This wasn't a comment meant to be pro or anti American, but the facts.

I think it has been asked several times but I don't see a response that answered it with any detail.

1. What is your vision of true Communism that is worthy of being called communism?

I like the idea of communism where we are all equal and money is not the driver of things. However, I got a feeling that not even in your communist country we will all be treated equal.

What lifestyle would a doctor have compared to lets say a janitor (note nothing wrong with being a janitor, but its a lot less of a sacrifice/commitment to be a janitor than a doctor)?

What would encourage people to become doctors? I'm sure we probably would get some better doctors from a communist state since their motivation will not be monetary based but solely the desire to help people.However, I'm sure we would also have a lot less doctors as well to meet the demand of the population. So great for the few people that got treated by the awesome doctors but sorry to the the rest of the population that died because they never got to see a doctor.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Yes, the US became prosperous after the raping of Europe and Japan during WWII.

Care to back that up with some hard evidence? Ever heard of the Marshall Plan? America pumped billions into Europe to rebuild after the war and after four years the European economies had surpassed their previous economies and enjoyed unprecedented prosperity in their histories for years to come!

America also pumped billions into rebuilding Japan and it became one of the leading economies of the world and first in Asia.

Please stop repeating ridiculous anti-american propaganda you are embarrassing yourselves! America has plenty of things to be angry at her about but WWII is not one of them!

The Marshall plan wasn't a gift that was pumped in, it was a loan that took the UK for example 50 years to pay off, including the interest. I'm not saying I dispute the need for it, but it was by no means a gift, please don't try and dress it up to look like one.

Of course it was it was both loans and grants to rebuild those countries. America was not obligated to do anything.

I never suggested otherwise. The previous post seemed to suggest it was a gift, if you look at my post first before reacting I didn't suggest there was any obligation.

It was a gift the loans and grants did not have to be offered and Europe would have suffered for decades had they not been given. it helped rebuild Europe's Economies to better then they had ever been how is that not a gift? During WWII America was still in transition from the free markets that made it great to the socialist corporatist mess we have today it did not have deep pockets it was in debt also from the war so it was indeed a gift to do what it did. Geez you act like it was some selfish act or something...

I hope you are not looking for sympathy here. Why don't you go to a commie country and live their life for a few and then get back to us. Stupid people enjoying the life they have in the USA and wishing it were different. At least your fiance isn't as dumb as you are.

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by ANOK

 

None of this matters because soon we will transition into the global rule of lucifer. Try and stick a label on that!?

You labeled it yourself, 'the global rule of Lucifer'.

Capitalism is 'the global rule of Lucifer'.

Originally posted by something wicked

Now that is pushing it a little. The terminology is such that you can only really use the last century and a bit as examples but what about Russia, China and Cambodia as three really easy examples. By proportion, the 'left wing regime' in those countries slaughtered and starved a huge percentage of its population. You may try to twist how you would label the governing party/regime, but to say it was not one that would be considered left wing in its true sense would be naive.

Not at all. Those regimes were not left-wing by any stretch of the definition.

I keep saying this but what a country does, does not define the label they decide to use.

Left-wing ideology was not about governments and authority, quite the opposite. The original meaning of left and right was a scale of authority, left wing was the anti-statists Anarchism (libertarianism) being the extreme, right-wing was about maintaining the establishment and increasing authority, fascism being it's extreme.

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

Don't believe that? Then listen to Chomsky explain it. You might not like his political views, but remember he is a linguist professor, he knows language and the meaning of terms.

Originally posted by something wicked

Is that nazism as in the National Socialist Party (that's where the term Nazi comes from)? While I wouldn't call nazism straightout communism, the ideals it sold to the German people were based on a socialist ideal. If captalists in America sought to profit from them, that's a different thing isn't it?

Hitler sold his people a lie. Naziism was not based on socialism, it was not supportive of worker ownership.

The Nazi's allowed private ownership but was mostly nationalism, state ownership.

State ownership is nationalism, socialism is worker ownership.

You have to understand the history of those times in Europe to understand why nations used those terms. Before WWII the working class was predominately left-wing, and were very organized and active, unlike today. To the point a revolution started in Spain in 1936, that was supported by socialists the world over. Hitler helped Franco with his fascist military coupe, he didn't help the socialists. There was a power struggle between the establishment and the people. Hitler used the term socialism to appease the working class, and to convince them he was working for their best interest. Of course his actions proved he wasn't. Socialists and communists were interned along with the Jews and the Gays. Left-wingers were considered undesirables in Hitlers Germany.

In the concentration camps Gays wore pink triangles, the Jews yellow, socialists/anarchists etc. wore black.

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
I hope you are not looking for sympathy here. Why don't you go to a commie country and live their life for a few and then get back to us. Stupid people enjoying the life they have in the USA and wishing it were different. At least your fiance isn't as dumb as you are.

What commie countries?

The problem is people don't read, or try to understand, they just accept what they're told.

This whole thread is full of explanations as to why there are no 'commie countries'. The point has been covered already.

Better check under you bed mate, it's a commie take-over Harry.