Communist weigh in on Obama zombies

Great find op S&F.

reply to post by newcovenant


Newcovenant,
Social programs will have to be reformed. We can no longer afford them.
Unions will have to be reformed. We can no longer afford them either.
DC needs to be reformed. We can not afford to leave it as it is.
Republicrates and Demolicans have to go!
Quad

reply to post by newcovenant


This is great! I agree.
And the next 20-30 years we will have either Stalin or Hitler as president depending on which party wins. And all the cats who lived under Stalin or Hitler will scratch their heads and call us spoiled American brats.. Although this escalated rhetoric does make me worry, bs like leaving the union (which is bs I could not have imagined people saying years ago). We have become the spoiled brat nation. We've had forms of socialism in this country for a long time, from creating the first standing union army to the New Deal. We have become brats. If someone accidently gets a larger burger patty at McDonald's someone is going to scream that it is redistribution of wealth. No where near what Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia looked like.

reply to post by ANOK


Your link just emphasizes that socialists did not like the violent approach of the communists. Even Hitler did not like communists and had some imprisoned when they didn't like his program. They are all leftists regardless and communism is still just a step further than socialism.

However, even though Marx's beliefs are now considered to be socialistic rather than communist, many people consider Marx the father of communism. Communism was developed from the writings of Marx and Vladimir Lenin, a Russian revolutionary leader during the early 1900's. Communism and socialism were very similar until a group of socialists called democratic socialists began to reject the principles of communism. The democratic socialists did not agree with the way the communists used violence and revolution to gain control. Communists began to aim more at government power, while socialists concentrated on fair distribution of products and equality for all classes. Communists thought that all means of production or any material necessary for life should be controlled by the government while socialists left some control in the private sector.

www.hyperhistory.net...

I think we're mistaking Pravda as news here. When have they been anyone's concept of a source of news?? I started to follow them a few years ago for a short period because some looked quite interesting.....and I hadn't watched them long enough to see the rest.

They're one step above bat boy articles in the national enquirer as I came to see them after a bit of time watching.

They may have gotten this story right, but from them? It's not said to inform, it's said to rub it in and pour salt in the wound. The Obama die hards won't hear it or will ignore it. It's targeted to the people likely to be annoyed the most. That's Pravda.

I figure there is a world's difference between reference and source. CNN/Fox and I'll even begrudgingly give Al Jazeera consideration as source. Pravda? Russia TV for the most part? Press TV? Hmmm... Decent references, just never sources, IMO.

reply to post by JBpage76


JBpage76, The article is correct, here is a quote from your post.

"Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

They believe Obama is Weak and Lies and Americans are illiterate, I don't think their that far off the mark.
Wrabbit2000, a quote from your reply:

The Obama die hards won't hear it or will ignore it. It's targeted to the people likely to be annoyed the most.

Wrabbit2000, I assume you read the thread that was started about: Jamie Foxx: 'Our Lord and Savior Barack Obama'

Read more: newsbusters.org...

So,, I don't think Pravda is so far off the mark at all. The above article and video is just plain Crazy.
None of the Obama Faithfuls really want to know what the C.C.P thinks of Obama and his administration.

S & F

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK

 

Your link just emphasizes that socialists did not like the violent approach of the communists. Even Hitler did not like communists and had some imprisoned when they didn't like his program. They are all leftists regardless and communism is still just a step further than socialism.

No they're not. Even Hitler? Hitler put all socialists, communists, unionists, in prison. Hitler was anti-left wing, obviously. He did not used the term socialism the way the left use it. He was not pro-worker ownership. He got rid of his opposition, not people who supported him. Use a little logic eh? Try reading Mein Kampf, and maybe you'll learn something. Read the Communist Manifesto and get a clue already!

Left-wing originally meant you were for government reform. The right-wing was for maintaining the establishment and state authority. Hitler was the extreme of the right, along with Lenin, who only used left-wing terminology to gain support, once in power they acted no differently from capitalists. They formed a state-capitalist economy, not a communist economy.

Communism is not a step further than socialism, both terms mean the same thing.

You really need to learn that what you have been taught by main stream history is not the actual truth, but a bastardized truth used to control your thoughts.

It gets real tiring to keep hearing the mixed up nonsense you and a couple others on ATS try to claim. Just try for one second to learn something....

Marx and Engels used the terms Communism and Socialism to mean precisely the same thing. They used “Communism” in the early years up to about 1875, and after that date mainly used the term “Socialism.” There was a reason for this. In the early days, about 1847-1850, Marx and Engels chose the name “Communism” in order to distinguish their ideas from Utopian, reactionary or disreputable movements then in existence, which called themselves “Socialist.” Later on, when these movements disappeared or went into obscurity, and when, from 1870 onwards, parties were being formed in many countries under the name Social-Democratic Party or Socialist Party, Marx and Engels reverted to the words Socialist and Socialism.

The Terms “Socialism” and “Communism”

You'll never understand what communism/socialism is unless you actually research and study it. You have to realise the right-wing lie, have always lied, in order to maintain the establishment, and ensure that private property owners continue to own and control the economy.

When I talk about left-wing and socialism I mean the working class labour movement for worker ownership, not despotic totalitarian dictatorships. Unfortunately your main stream history does not teach the real socialism, it teaches you the lies government told their people and sell that to you as truth. Yes there is a reason for that, to maintain capitalist control of the economy.

“when Fascism comes to America it will come in the guise of Anti-Fascism.” Upton Sinclair

""The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." Adolf Hitler

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." Adolf Hitler

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." Adolf Hitler

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." Adolf Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." Adolf Hitler

BTW you didn't read too much of that link did you?

The first large CHEKA action against alleged anarchists where people were killed was in mid April 1918 in Petrograd. Then at the end of April and beginning of May coordinated CHEKIST attacks against alleged anarchists were launched in both Petrograd and Moscow. ( P. Avrich. G. Maximoff. ) These violent attacks without warning from the Bolsheviks forced anarchists underground and prompted measured retaliation by them in self-defense. Anarchists in Rostov, Ekaterinoslav and Briansk broke into prisons to liberate the prisoners and issued fiery proclamations calling on the people to revolt against the Bolshevik regime. The Anarchist Battle Detachments attacked the Whites, Reds and Germans alike. Many peasants joined the revolt, attacking their enemies with pitchforks and sickles.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also this part is important to understand...

Workers Opposition

Alexandra Kollontai increasingly became an internal critic of the Communist Party and joined with her friend, Alexander Shlyapnikov, to form a left-wing faction of the party that became known as the Workers' Opposition [to the Bolsheviks].

So called "communism" of the Russian state was not the communism of the working people who were the real left-wing communists and apposed the "communist party" and the Bolsheviks.

reply to post by JBpage76


"LET IT GO, AND COME TO THE DARK SIDE..." (We have cookies!)

reply to post by JBpage76


This thread displays total ignorance. Why can't the right wing pick up a book and understand what socialism is? Or communism is? Or even do a google search?

Obama is a capitalist wet dream.

What a real communist thinks about Obama;

reply to post by ANOK


As usual you are trying to paint the less leftist part of the left wing as a right wing outfit.

I always refer people to Antony Sutton in this case for a relevant explanation, then Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" for an understanding that communism, socialism, and fascism are all cut from the same Totalitarian ideology.

www.prisonplanet.com...

I don't really think you will read it, because you seem to think you know better, but this is for others who care to know the truth.

reply to post by Trustfund


And to think, people here keep telling me communism is dead since the fall of the Great USSR. Guess not.

reply to post by ANOK


What I have been taught by the MSM? How about what I learned from reading the Communist Manifesto and from the words of Karl Marx and Lenin.....but never mind that.

You truly outpicture the real meaning of willfully ignoring reality and truth. And it's really funny that I get criticized here by leftists for suggesting that communism and socialism are so closely related. I wish you lefties would make up your mind about it.

Here in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx states emphatically how the socialists viewed the communists.

It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man, it gave a hidden, higher, socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally destructive" tendency of communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called socialist and communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature. [3]

www.anu.edu.au...


Here, Marx expounds on forming and using trade unions in the battle against the bourgeoisie(for those who won't admit that Unions have been a tool of communism)

Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (trade unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots.

Out of the horse's mouth I daresay.

Here's something Marx said about working and property. interestingly, he seemed to believe that the common working man was more admirable than the bourgeois capitalist owners of the means of production, but socialists take this a step further in confiscating the property of even the workers through taxation. I think the communists intended to tax the very rich while transferring the ownership of production to the workers, while socialists today tax everything in sight for the common good. But then again, we hear Barack Obama and his supporters including the OWS movement talking about soaking the rich and making them "pay their fair share". If this is not communism/socialism, I don't know what is.
Perhaps there is not a whole lot of difference between the two, but both Marx and Lenin said socialism was but a bridge between capitalism and communism.

But does wage labor create any property for the laborer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labor, and which cannot increase except upon conditions of begetting a new supply of wage labor for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labor. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

Here Marx tries to convince us that communism is not really the abolition of private property but transferring Capital into the common ownership, which essentially means redistributing property, but he feels obviously that the workers own it already by their labor, and that the bougeois owners are just letting someone else do the work. Again, where is really the distinction here of the communist abolition of bourgeois property and transferring it into the common pool? Is that not abolition of private property and transferring wealth? Is that not the classic redistribution of income which the textbooks and dictionaries all have determined to be a key component of communism?

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property

And yet here he makes clear what the intentions of communists are

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property

Again, the horse's mouth.

Likewise, here he explains the intention of destroying the (bourgeois ) family unit and tells us that he believes parents exploit their children so abolition of the family will stop that. This is also the basis for the Marxist Hillary and her UN Treaty of the Child to wrest away the authority of the parent and replace the parent with the Supreme State.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Marx clearly delineates that the attack on Capitalism will achieve this goal for them.

Here he explains EXACTLY the need to abolish HOME EDUCATION of the Child and replace that with public education. (This is also for the people here who tell me that not only do I not understand socialism and communism, but one person explicitly told me that public education was NOT SOCIALISM, and yet here is Karl Marx himself telling us that it is SO.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

Now after all this, the Crown Jewel of all jewels to refute you and prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that I am correct...

A quote from Lenin

The goal of socialism is communism.

www.brainyquote.com...


Later on I may quote the actial planks of the communist manifesto

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
How about what I learned from reading the Communist Manifesto and from the words of Karl Marx

I don't care about Lenin, he was a fake, but I am interested in what you learned from reading the Communist Manifesto. You do understand that it wasn't about communism right (You have to read 'Critique of the Gotha Program' for that)? And that communism exists outside of Marxism? And that more importantly what happened in the USSR is not what Marx envisioned?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK

 

As usual you are trying to paint the less leftist part of the left wing as a right wing outfit.

No, you simply have it backwards because you've read some right-wing nonsense somewhere.

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...

I always refer people to Antony Sutton in this case for a relevant explanation, then Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" for an understanding that communism, socialism, and fascism are all cut from the same Totalitarian ideology.

www.prisonplanet.com...

I don't really think you will read it, because you seem to think you know better, but this is for others who care to know the truth.

I do know better. He's talking about Illuminati and all that nonsense, I am talking about REAL history, history that the right would rather you not know about. Just because you choose to believe other peoples claims it doesn't make them true.

Socialism and communism came BEFORE Marx. Marx was influenced by Proudhon, who was the first socialist to call himself an Anarchist in 'What is Property?'. Any critique of Marx is NOT a critique of socialism nor communism. There have been many movements for socialism/communism, that all have different ideas. Those ideas belong to those movements and not to socialism/communism itself.

Socialism/communism is simply the workers ownership of the means of production. Marxism is/was a political movement to bring about worker ownership, socialism, using the political path. Anarchism was also a movement to bring about worker ownership, socialism, but from none-political direct action. They differed greatly as to how to accomplish that same goal, socialism.

So a question no one has yet answered, if socialism is what you think it is, them how do you explain Anarchists being Socialists? Can you also explain why Anarchism is also known as Libertarian Socialism?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" Mikhail Bakunin (if you don't know who that is then your research is thoroughly lacking)

The mainstream of anarchist propaganda for more than a century has been anarchist-communism, which argues that property in land, natural resources, and the means of production should be held in mutual control by local communities, federating for innumerable joint purposes with other communes. It differs from state socialism in opposing the concept of any central authority. Some anarchists prefer to distinguish between anarchist-communism and collectivist anarchism in order to stress the obviously desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others.

Anarcho-syndicalism puts its emphasis on the organized industrial workers who could, through a ‘social general strike’, expropriate the possessors of capital and thus engineer a workers’ take-over of industry and administration.

Colin Ward, 'Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction'. ch.1 p.2, 1995

"one of the greatest anarchist thinkers of the past half century, and a pioneering social historian."

Colin Ward

reply to post by ANOK

You do understand that it wasn't about communism right

So the Manifesto of the Communist Party was not about communism. Ok I would sure love for you to prove that point.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So the Manifesto of the Communist Party was not about communism. Ok I would sure love for you to prove that point.

From the back cover of my copy...

"It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's future forms" Soho Books

So let's stop the BS, you have never read it have you?

Now who's laughing? And the person who stared you

reply to post by ANOK

No, you simply have it backwards because you've read some right-wing nonsense somewhere.

No, I do not have it backwards. It is you who have everything all mixed up.

Communism is a social structure and political ideology in which property is commonly controlled. Communism (written with a capital C) is a modern political movement that aims to overthrow capitalism via revolution to create a classless society where all goods are publicly owned. Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution and only becoming possible after a socialist stage develops the productive forces, leading to a superabundance of goods and services.

topdocumentaryfilms.com...
Here is a commentary by pro Marxist writer on how Marx attempted to "bridge" French Socialism with his concepts of Communism.

Arriving in Paris at the end of 1843, Marx rapidly made contact with organized groups of émigr?German workers and with various sects of French socialists. He also edited the short-lived Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher which was intended to bridge French socialism and the German radical Hegelians. During his first few months in Paris, Marx became a communist and set down his views in a series of writings known as the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), which remained unpublished until the 1930s. In the Manuscripts, Marx outlined a humanist conception of communism,

www.historyguide.org...

Here is an interesting quote by Marx

Democracy is the road to socialism

Here he talks about Christian Socialism

Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

Here is his concept of redistribution of wealth

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs

www.notable-quotes.com...


And oops, PlanetAnarchy website for Occupy Wall Street says......

Socialism is the bridge between capitalism and communism; it is a transitional period that has features of both the society of yesterday (capitalism) and tomorrow (communism) because it will inherit the world capitalism has left it.

www.planetanarchy.net...

Wonder where they got that idea!
Here's a hint for you....what you personally think of Lenin does not make him less of a Communist. Sorry to say...

Out of curiosity, which version of Communism do you prefer?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So the Manifesto of the Communist Party was not about communism. Ok I would sure love for you to prove that point.

From the back cover of my copy...

"It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's future forms" Soho Books

So let's stop the BS, you have never read it have you?

Now who's laughing?

And the person who stared you

edit on 11/27/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Is that "copy" an original ?

Perhaps the "back cover" is simply an opinion by a publisher.

Did Marx or Engels ever actually write that opinion ?

Was that opinion ever on the back cover of an "original" book ?

Could be a clever sales trick.

reply to post by ANOK



Oh pullease...that was a review by some goofball. Since when is Soho Books part of the Communist Manifesto?

I could do that too and have it on the back of some book. Don't be ridiculous. Every post of yours is characterized by a lack of real understanding.

Why don't you go through the Communist Manifesto and break down some of the lines like I just did? While you were writing your uninformed post accusing me of never having read the Communist Manifesto, I was going through it line by line, and obviously not the first time I have done that.

Communism is pure hatred of the bourgeois and that is why the Communist Manifesto appears to be "about the ills of Capitalism" because Karl Marx and the Communists viewed the Bourgeois as evil plights on society. Communism was about detroying Capitalism as much as it was a philosophy. It is completely fueled out of a deep hatred of bourgeois Capitalism.

Since you have a copy of the Communist Manifesto and have read it, you will recognize these major planks of Communist goals.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

www.anu.edu.au...

reply to post by xuenchen

Perhaps the "back cover" is simply an opinion by a publisher.

Yes it clearly was just a review from the publisher or someone else who reviewed it. The statement is not in any way part of the Manifesto.

I found the publication from Soho www.barnesandnoble.com...

In fact the entire Communist Manifesto is more of an apologetics paper trying to refute the arguments against communism which were of the day. Marx spends a lot of time trying to refute the attack on communism that communists are trying to abolish the family, by saying they only oppose the bourgeois family unit and the supposed bourgeois exploitation of children. What is meant by that of course is that children worked in the factories, and since then the Socialists have achieved the goal of eliminating child labor.
Indeed the Communist Manifesto was expressly commissioned by the Communist League. It appears to have been to answer to arguments against Communism then.

While arguing about the merits and drawbacks of communism is all well and good, the article in the OP is still not an article written by a communist.

So ultimately, arguing about communism in this particular thread is pointless and not worth the effort.