I joined the Communist Party

page: 39
28
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Fy faen! Nå er jeg forvirret og sint!!!

Anyway, I apologize for the screwed up post, initially. Let me try to rewrite what I wrote.

Erik Røde was outlawed by Iceland, not Norge. A ting was made up of the free people of a society/land/province/country etc...
edit on 6/17/2012 by brukernavn because: Alt var feil




posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


During that period the 'ruling class' would be the workers, it is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Following on from the theories of Marx and Engels, Marxists believe that such a socialist state is an inevitable step in the evolution of human society. They argue that it is a transitional phase that emerges out of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", or capitalist society, in which the private ownership of industry and resources leads to a monopoly of economic power (albeit sometimes within a democratic parliament) by the capitalist class. With an economy under democratic control, Marxists expect political power to be held by the majority working class.


Dictatorship of the proletariat

edit on 6/17/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
.

He keeps repeating himself and none of his replies are longer than 2 sentences.

He is also very condescend



to his defense---- people keep making the same semantic mistakes over and over.

he believes communism is something other than the communism some people keep talking about here.


It looks to me like he is being fed lots of propaganda from Party members and he seems to be stuck on one main idea, that the proletariat worker is going to own everything and it's going to be a Beautiful Day, just like an old Hollywood movie.
the truth is what the rest of us have been saying, that communism, aside from the Utopian ideals, in the real word is disgustingly violent, Statist, prone to dictatorial maniacs leading, and spiritually degraded. At best it is an economic failure due to the fact that some bureaucrats at the top cannot run all the nuts and bolts of many businesses which are better managed at the private level.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by brukernavn
 





The beauty of it is that you have a choice. If you want to be the private owner of a business



You seem to not understand the basic definition of communism, that is the abolition of all private property. The intermediate form is socialism, which is just redistribution of property. In both forms the STATE decides things, but in Socialism, and in fascism, there is still some private business.

The propaganda of both the works of Martx himself and those who espouse his philosophy and that of communism in general is that supposedly the workers own the means of production, but Lenin and Marx both recongnized that there had to be a leadership at the helm. So what we saw in the Soviet Union was a top down implementation( with Lenin and then his successor Stalin as the leaders).
People did not have freedom, and they had to kow tow whoever was above them in hierarchy.
So you think that by getting rid of the bourgeois capitalists you will somehow have freedom, but in practice that is not what happens, and had not occurred anywhere in the world.



"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."[The Communist Manifesto (1848), Chapter 2, Proletarians and Communists - Karl Marx]


confessionsofamarxist.blogspot.com...
edit on 17-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by xuenchen
 


During that period the 'ruling class' would be the workers, it is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Following on from the theories of Marx and Engels, Marxists believe that such a socialist state is an inevitable step in the evolution of human society. They argue that it is a transitional phase that emerges out of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", or capitalist society, in which the private ownership of industry and resources leads to a monopoly of economic power (albeit sometimes within a democratic parliament) by the capitalist class. With an economy under democratic control, Marxists expect political power to be held by the majority working class.


Dictatorship of the proletariat

edit on 6/17/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


How would "the workers" handle these two parts ?


Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by boot2theface
 


It is not the Ten Planks of Communism, it's the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. It is the transition period that will lead to communism, it is not communism itself.

The ten planks are not communism. You need to read the Manifesto to understand this. This is a good example of quotes taken out of context and claimed to mean something it doesn't.

Marxists believe communism is not possible without a transition period where industry is nationalised, and the workers form a revolutionary government. During this period socialism will slowly replace capitalism, and then once the workers own all the means of production and peoples needs are met the state is dissolved and the move into communism is possible.

Communism is just a more radical version of socialism.

Not all socialists support this, Anarchists wanted direct action, not the political path of Marxism.

edit on 6/17/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


So do you by some oddly remote idea believe that once communism is achieved those ten planks will be gone? Do you really believe that after communism is 'achieved" they will just stop with the progressive taxation and all the rest of the things? I doubt it.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by brukernavn
 



The beauty of it is that you have a choice. If you want to be the private owner of a business



You seem to not understand the basic definition of communism, that is the abolition of all private property. The intermediate form is socialism, which is just redistribution of property. In both forms the STATE decides things, but in Socialism, and in fascism, there is still some private business.

The propaganda of both the works of Martx himself and those who espouse his philosophy and that of communism in general is that supposedly the workers own the means of production, but Lenin and Marx both recongnized that there had to be a leadership at the helm. So what we saw in the Soviet Union was a top down implementation( with Lenin and then his successor Stalin as the leaders).
People did not have freedom, and they had to kow tow whoever was above them in hierarchy.
So you think that by getting rid of the bourgeois capitalists you will somehow have freedom, but in practice that is not what happens, and had not occurred anywhere in the world.
edit on 17-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



Private property

Many people in the U.S. do not know the meaning of socialism and have little understanding about it, although the label “socialist” is often bandied about these days. Most people misunderstand concepts like social-ownership simply because they do not know what Marx and Lenin meant when they talked about “Private Property.”

Private property, when referred to by communists, only refers to private ownership of industry or the means of production; the things you own personally are not private property in this sense. Marx and Lenin would just call them personal belongings. Socialist economic systems seek to end private property by making the means of production collectively owned and democratically operated by the workers; the state protects the workers’ ownership of the means of production. This means real democracy in the workplace.

In a socialist system, the state would not come and take your things; that’s nonsense! The mainstream media (e.g. Fox News) would have you believe that socialists and communists will take your fingernails and toenails. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lenin wrote that if people try to accumulate and hoard publicly-owned property for their own private gain, then they will have all their personal belongings confiscated and will be sent to prison. But he never says anything about personal belongings in any other sense. The only ideology on the left in which theorists advocate the abolition of all personal belongings are the ultra-left deviations such as anarchism and Maoism. So it is very important to be precise when speaking about private property.

It is important to remember that the capitalist system leads the way in confiscation of working people’s property. The bottom 60% of households in this country owns only 4% of the nation’s wealth. The top 1% owns 37% of all the capital and the top 10% owns 90% of all capital. So, it is important to consider who is seizing what.



Privat eierskap.

What you consider private property is not banned under communism. Please link your references that all property, and I mean all, goes to the state. Is your toothbrush not even yours? Link please.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by brukernavn
 





She is half British, and apparently her grandfather was killed by the KGB.


Wow she must love you a lot to turn about her initial impressions based on her family's direct experience with KGB based on some guy's posts in this forum. Someone is going to get hurt in the end. Didn't you bother showing her the rest of our posts to give her the opposing viewpoint?
Probably not.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by brukernavn
Fy faen! Nå er jeg forvirret og sint!!!

Anyway, I apologize for the screwed up post, initially. Let me try to rewrite what I wrote.

Erik Røde was outlawed by Iceland, not Norge. A ting was made up of the free people of a society/land/province/country etc...
edit on 6/17/2012 by brukernavn because: Alt var feil


Yes, it was made up of the free population, but it was a system of government all the same. I apologize for my confusion - I thought you were speaking of Vikings in general, rather than Norsemen specifically. At that time, the rest of the world called all of them "Norsemen" or "Danes", regardless of their actual point of origin.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by brukernavn

What you consider private property is not banned under communism. Please link your references that all property, and I mean all, goes to the state. Is your toothbrush not even yours? Link please.



I consider my land to be my private property, but it is also a means of production, via farming. I don't concern myself with the notion of having my toothbrush, pocket watch, and shoes confiscated, but I'm reasonably certain that under communism my land would surely be, as well as the appurtenances of production - whether that was a tractor or a mule team.

My shoes and my belt I don't worry about, nor would I fight over them. I can always make more. I can't make more land, so when they come to confiscate that, I'll always have a 7foot by 4 foot patch of it, running 6 feet deep.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I agree with you. That is not in the communist teachings. If anybody came to take my home from me they would have to put up a hell of a fight, also. Although it is said that it is not true, us Norwegians that wish to have them do have guns. The whole point of the matter is that the means of production are worker owned, not the personal housing/property.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by brukernavn
Fy faen! Nå er jeg forvirret og sint!!!

Anyway, I apologize for the screwed up post, initially. Let me try to rewrite what I wrote.

Erik Røde was outlawed by Iceland, not Norge. A ting was made up of the free people of a society/land/province/country etc...
edit on 6/17/2012 by brukernavn because: Alt var feil


Yes, it was made up of the free population, but it was a system of government all the same. I apologize for my confusion - I thought you were speaking of Vikings in general, rather than Norsemen specifically. At that time, the rest of the world called all of them "Norsemen" or "Danes", regardless of their actual point of origin.





Danes? I am not disagreeing with you, but you are about to open up a can of worms when saying that to a nordmann. lol Norwegians hate Swedes and TOLERATE Danes. lol Not disagreeing with what you said, but be careful if you ever find yourself talking to another nordmann (Norwegian). lol



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by brukernavn
 





She is half British, and apparently her grandfather was killed by the KGB.


Wow she must love you a lot to turn about her initial impressions based on her family's direct experience with KGB based on some guy's posts in this forum. Someone is going to get hurt in the end. Didn't you bother showing her the rest of our posts to give her the opposing viewpoint?
Probably not.


Yes, she has a link to this thread and can see everything that she wishes.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by brukernavn
Fy faen! Nå er jeg forvirret og sint!!!

Anyway, I apologize for the screwed up post, initially. Let me try to rewrite what I wrote.

Erik Røde was outlawed by Iceland, not Norge. A ting was made up of the free people of a society/land/province/country etc...
edit on 6/17/2012 by brukernavn because: Alt var feil


Yes, it was made up of the free population, but it was a system of government all the same. I apologize for my confusion - I thought you were speaking of Vikings in general, rather than Norsemen specifically. At that time, the rest of the world called all of them "Norsemen" or "Danes", regardless of their actual point of origin.





OK. Now that I have reread it, you are correct. I ought to have said that they did it without a centralized form of government. You are correct.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by brukernavn
 





She is half British, and apparently her grandfather was killed by the KGB.


Wow she must love you a lot to turn about her initial impressions based on her family's direct experience with KGB based on some guy's posts in this forum. Someone is going to get hurt in the end. Didn't you bother showing her the rest of our posts to give her the opposing viewpoint?
Probably not.


Considering the fact that I still cry myself to sleep every night thinking of my dead wife, I do not think that any other hurt can hurt any more, aside from a death.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by brukernavn
 


It's the vague wording that bothers me. "Means of production". That phrase has been used more than once to collectivize farms and dispossess the farmer of his means of making a living. Using the revolution in Nicaragua again as an example, the land holdings of United Fruit were used as a justification to promote the collectivization of farms, but when Ortega got around to collectivizing, it didn't stop at United Fruit or large estates - even family farms that had been in families for generations was collectivized and the campesinos relocated.

That's one example of where communist theory has been transformed into a nightmare reality.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by brukernavn
 


It's the vague wording that bothers me. "Means of production". That phrase has been used more than once to collectivize farms and dispossess the farmer of his means of making a living. Using the revolution in Nicaragua again as an example, the land holdings of United Fruit were used as a justification to promote the collectivization of farms, but when Ortega got around to collectivizing, it didn't stop at United Fruit or large estates - even family farms that had been in families for generations was collectivized and the campesinos relocated.

That's one example of where communist theory has been transformed into a nightmare reality.



Those businesses were handed over to the people, not the state? Honest question.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by brukernavn

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by brukernavn
 





She is half British, and apparently her grandfather was killed by the KGB.


Wow she must love you a lot to turn about her initial impressions based on her family's direct experience with KGB based on some guy's posts in this forum. Someone is going to get hurt in the end. Didn't you bother showing her the rest of our posts to give her the opposing viewpoint?
Probably not.


Considering the fact that I still cry myself to sleep every night thinking of my dead wife, I do not think that any other hurt can hurt any more, aside from a death.


Well, I am truly sorry for your pain.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by brukernavn

Danes? I am not disagreeing with you, but you are about to open up a can of worms when saying that to a nordmann. lol Norwegians hate Swedes and TOLERATE Danes. lol Not disagreeing with what you said, but be careful if you ever find yourself talking to another nordmann (Norwegian). lol



No offense intended, but the Irish, English, and several other people weren't particularly finicky over where the people who came ashore carrying swords and axes came from. The first one to any particular location usually gave their name to any that followed, regardless of where the subsequent men came from. "Northmen" was about as generic as it got!

How could anyone possibly hate Swedes? We're taught from birth here that they have that bikini team! My son dated a Swedish girl for a while, but you'll be glad to know that I wouldn't allow him to marry her!





edit on 2012/6/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by brukernavn

Danes? I am not disagreeing with you, but you are about to open up a can of worms when saying that to a nordmann. lol Norwegians hate Swedes and TOLERATE Danes. lol Not disagreeing with what you said, but be careful if you ever find yourself talking to another nordmann (Norwegian). lol



No offense intended, but the Irish, English, and several other people weren't particularly finicky over where the people who came ashore carrying swords and axes came from. The first one to any particular location usually gave their name to any that followed, regardless of where the subsequent men came from. "Northmen" was about as generic as it got!

How could anyone possibly hate Swedes? We're taught from birth here that they have that bikini team! My son dated a Swedish girl for a while, but you'll be glad to know that I wouldn't allow him to marry her!





edit on 2012/6/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Agreed, just warning you next time you are in Norge, as if you go there frequently.
It is nice to have a laugh, considering all of the sourpuss posts.

Edit: In reality, us Norwegians, the Danes, and Swedes all share the same blood. We just like to think that we are better than the other for certain reasons. My favorite thing to say to Swedes is, "we have oil".
edit on 6/17/2012 by brukernavn because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 36  37  38    40 >>

log in

join