I joined the Communist Party

Originally posted by Torbu
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Maybe you should read my posts on this thread. I lived in Romania, a socialist country. I think socialism and even communism might work.

Oh of couse, it might work if only....if only those darn capitalists hadn't ruined it all. If only those nasty dictators hadn't been so awful.....

I have a friend from Poland who says different from you. Maybe you are one of those die-hard communists who just never gave up.

And, you lived in Romania but no more. Would you mind telling me why you left Romania? And if the country you ran to was communist or not?

If you ran from a communist country to a non-communist country please don't bother trying to sell me communism. thanks very much.

Originally posted by brukernavn

This entire post is completely irrelevant and only shows that you have no grasp of what communism is. Also, do you mean that most electronics are manufactured in the West? News to me. May I see a link?

Didn't you know that video games, online games, game consoles, ipods, iphones, etc are ALL part of the "decadent western society of consumerism/aka capitalism"?...

If you don't know this then you don't know ANYTHING about socialism/communism...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK

 

And please, Chomsky is a radical leftist self described anarcho socialist and claims to be libertarian too. Libertarian and socialism are already at odds with each other and anarchism is used by communists to produce revolution. Classically, the socialists hated the communists because they thought communism was too violent. Indeed communism is the more radical of the two.

edit on 13-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

WOW! I really thought that those bots that could post on forums were a legend but I can not believe that a human being intelligent enough to use a computer, that has some reading and hearing skills, is able to put together a paragraph like that after all the arguments being presented.
In case you really are not a bot, lose 5 minutes on that Chomsky video posted a couple of replies ago, you'd save yourself some further embarrassment.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Did you know that in Romania they gave us computer programming courses back in 85? We even had video games on them. And some of them were written in Romania. Never paid for any of them as they were free.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I was a minor when I left Romania with my parents, it was in 90 when we saw the kind of people that came to power and when we understood that what happened was a coup d'état.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Electronics have nothing to do with communism nor socialism. Absolutely nothing. Next?

Originally posted by Torbu

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK

 

And please, Chomsky is a radical leftist self described anarcho socialist and claims to be libertarian too. Libertarian and socialism are already at odds with each other and anarchism is used by communists to produce revolution. Classically, the socialists hated the communists because they thought communism was too violent. Indeed communism is the more radical of the two.

edit on 13-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

WOW! I really thought that those bots that could post on forums were a legend but I can not believe that a human being intelligent enough to use a computer, that has some reading and hearing skills, is able to put together a paragraph like that after all the arguments being presented.
In case you really are not a bot, lose 5 minutes on that Chomsky video posted a couple of replies ago, you'd save yourself some further embarrassment.

Calling me a bot isn't going to change anything. You are self-deluded and deluded by the leftist Chomsky. He talks a good talk and all.

Save yourself the embarassment. All I needed to read was this to know what Chomsky is about

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private property into the commons or public goods

en.wikipedia.org...
So while they claim to want to respect private property, it is a total oxymoron to say you want to convert private property into common property and yet retain respect for private property. How can people believe this or say it with a straight face?

Originally posted by Torbu
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I was a minor when I left Romania with my parents, it was in 90 when we saw the kind of people that came to power and when we understood that what happened was a coup d'état.

Oh I see, so you left Romania after communism fell. I should have known. You poor dear, you are languishing in your desire for the Old World you never really knew.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

And please, Chomsky is a radical leftist self described anarcho socialist and claims to be libertarian too.

And this is why it's a waste of time debating you.

Of course, he's a Libertarian Socialist. I am a Libertarian Socialist. Why do you think he is? Because he understands what it is. He says what he says because he understands it, not because he is a 'radical'.

Your bias is just incredible. This is why you are ignorant, you won't even listen and try to understand what socialists actually say, you only listen to what other people claim they say.

You think he's lying just because he's a LibSoc? He's a linguist professor! Do you know what a linguist is? If he was wrong, or lying, that would be his reputation as a linguist gone, he would not be able to teach. Jeez where is the critical thinking, your logic?

Linguistics is the scientific study of human language. Linguistics can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context.

en.wikipedia.org...

I think Chomsky knows more than you do.

Radical? You are most radical proponent of any economic system in this thread. Funny how only those who are left are radicals.

""I joined the Communist Party""


I thought you were referring to America. Congress gave the President authority to use the military and detain Americans without a trial, forever. Congress also gave the President authority to kill Americans, without a trial.

U.S.A. is now officially....Communist.

The protests that just happened in Russia.....if they happened tomorrow in any American city, they'd be water blasted, tazered, LRAD sound weapons used against them....or worse.

Ironic isn't it?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Please, watch this:

www.youtube.com...

Maybe you'd understand the context on which those affirmations are made. Sometimes, taking sentences out of context makes them lose their meaning.

All thi s chomsky business is just more communism dressed in pretty sounding words. It may sound lovely to have all the life's needs taken care of by the nanny state who loves you so much it wants you to be part of it's collective, but to be in that collective is to be without liberty.

Karl Marx died a pauper as well. Is that what you want for yourself and your children? To die as a penniless proletariat worker with a green hat and a che guevara t shirt?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You will need to try a bit harder than that.

In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals can not be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Examples of public goods include fresh air, clean water, knowledge, lighthouses, open source software, radio and television broadcasts, roads, street lighting. Public goods that are available everywhere are sometimes referred to as global public goods.

Public goods.

Commons are resources that are owned in common[1] or shared among communities. These resources are said to be "held in common" and can include everything from natural resources and common land to software.[2] The commons contains public property and private property, over which people have certain traditional rights.

Commons

Originally posted by Torbu
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Please, watch this:

www.youtube.com...

Maybe you'd understand the context on which those affirmations are made. Sometimes, taking sentences out of context makes them lose their meaning.

Look Chomsky is still for redistribution of wealth because that is what socialism is, that is what the collective is. Minimizing the authoritarian outlook is not enough. It's like saying, we will still confiscate your paycheck but we'll be nice about it.
Balogna! A communist is still a communist.
Socialism is a means to communism. Marx said it, Lenin said it. I bet Chomsky believes it too.

He is just condemning Capitalism as all good communists do, even laissez-faire. He is just another communist. He is suggesting that the "real" Adam Smith and the "real" Thomas Jefferson were Libertarian socialists at heart. I feel poisoned just listening to his talk.

reply to post by Pervius


How does a leader having absolute power and killing the citizenry make a nation communist?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You're not debating, you are simply making stuff up and ranting.

Marx dying as a pauper has nothing to do with socialism. I don't think you have read through any posts.

I'm not a Marxist. Marx is only used as reference for understanding. Your understanding is just all over the place.

You make assumptions about what people believe based on irrelevant history that you clumsily fit together.

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by Pervius

 

How does a leader having absolute power and killing the citizenry make a nation communist?

The observation is that communists in power almost always are murderous brutes.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The phrase "confiscating your paycheck" is so asinine. Where in their works does it say that you will have your paycheck confiscated? Is that not what actually happens under capitalism?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

You're not debating, you are simply making stuff up and ranting.

Marx dying as a pauper has nothing to do with socialism. I don't think you have read through any posts.

I'm not a Marxist. Marx is only used as reference for understanding. Your understanding is just all over the place.

You make assumptions about what people believe based on irrelevant history that you clumsily fit together.

edit on 6/13/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

No, I'm sorry, I just haven't taken the poison pill, and so for you my reasoning may appear all over the place. It is a fact that Marx was so busy writing that *^ap and theorizing that he was unable to take care of his family, and what little he made came from Engels. Marx obviously believed that others should be responsible for him. And therein lies the entire lie of what he wrote, the poison is in the fact that is how he lived his life and that is what he viewed as the savior of poverty, letting others pay for you. That is the essence of socialism. Socialism and communism are intertwined.
Communism, socialism, and Marxism are bereft of spiritual and moral piety. They are disease and decay of the spirit.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Might you be able to name one of these "brutes"? One that took power and truly tried to give the means of production to the laborers instead of the state owning the means? Can you name one?