Nelson Mandela 'proven' to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial`, page 2


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 08:17 PM by blackcube
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Hellhound604


And there was a dang good reason for that death penalty too.
And there still should be a death penalty for it.


You really are promoting death penalty to people just because they are affiliate to communist party?


reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 09:15 PM by Mr Tranny
Originally posted by blackcube
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Hellhound604


And there was a dang good reason for that death penalty too.
And there still should be a death penalty for it.


You really are promoting death penalty to people just because they are affiliate to communist party?


Yes!

Sedition and subversion has always been punishable by death.

One of the primary tenants of people following communism is subverting the government they currently reside under, to bring about change to their system.

A person that is a member of the communist party that is in your country can reasonably be expected to be supporting sedition either passively, or actively. Passivly via useful idiots that buy into that crap to give them enough votes, and support, to gain positions of power. And the active support where they are actually pushing propaganda to support the movement.

Ones that are members but hide the fact, are usually the ones that try to bring about change for “the good of the people” when they know that the laws they get passed will help the communist movement take over when they get demographic superiority. And those laws also help them grow their demographic superiority via indoctrination in the education system..

The US media, college professors, and politicians are a standing example.

The communist and the islamist are of the same leaf in that regard. They scream minority rights, and freedom of speech, until they become the majority, then it’s off to the reeducation camps, or off with your head, in that order.

When you are using that freedom of speech to support a system that will nullify that freedom of speech for everyone else, then by default, you lose that right to your freedom of speech.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 09:58 PM by ShotGunRum
reply to post by adjensen


Capitalism ends up with billions murdered over money....so...... you must be ignorant of history or willingly ignore it. You want to ignore all the wars for profit? The slave trade? Drug wars? Dying from lack of healthcare? Lack of food? Lack of water? Even though the resources are there to feed these people?

And none of the "communist" countries ever practiced communism.

edit on 8-12-2012 by ShotGunRum because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 10:15 PM by adjensen
reply to post by ShotGunRum


What billions? We have hard evidence of the tens of millions directly killed by the governments of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the 1900s -- do you have real evidence that capitalism directly kills billions of people, or are you just posturing?


reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 10:18 PM by antonia
reply to post by ShotGunRum


Well technically it's not fair to say billions as up until very recently there wasn't even a billion people on the planet. To say millions is fair though.


reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 10:31 PM by Mr Tranny
reply to post by adjensen


You have to keep their perspective into account. In their world view, every single person that was born, grew up, grew old, and died in a capitalist state was a “victim” or “casualty” of capitalism. That is because that person’s entire life was spent as a slave to the “capitalist state”

When they have that opinion, then trying to make them question their perception is like trying to have a debate with a brick wall.


reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 11:08 PM by Rubic0n
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Originally posted by blackcube
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Hellhound604


And there was a dang good reason for that death penalty too.
And there still should be a death penalty for it.


You really are promoting death penalty to people just because they are affiliate to communist party?


Yes!

Sedition and subversion has always been punishable by death.

One of the primary tenants of people following communism is subverting the government they currently reside under, to bring about change to their system.

A person that is a member of the communist party that is in your country can reasonably be expected to be supporting sedition either passively, or actively. Passivly via useful idiots that buy into that crap to give them enough votes, and support, to gain positions of power. And the active support where they are actually pushing propaganda to support the movement.

edit on 8-12-2012 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)


Much like how America is spreading democracy (and their banks) to governments around the world you mean ?

Or would you claim that they did all of that in total transparency?


reply posted on 8-12-2012 @ 11:38 PM by ANOK
Originally posted by adjensen
Seriously? Are you that ignorant of history? Every communist government has wound up committing genocide against its own people, because in the end, in practice it's one of the WORST ideologies in the world and people will only give up their own independence, which is required by communism, at the point of a gun.


But you have to realise those so called communist countries were not communist.

For example the USSR. The Bolsheviks used a twisted Marxist ideology to simply gain support from the people. They had no intention of implementing communism, they simply wanted to take state power, which is what they did.
They implemented a state-capitalist economy.

Communism is socialism, and is an economic system, not a political system. Even if a nation has a so called communist or socialist government, unless the workers own the means of production the nation is not communist/socialist.

The majority of so called "communist parties" have been everything but communist. This is why socialists such as Mikhail Bakunin called themselves anarchist, and didn't trust the Marxists.

So throwing all so called "communists" into the same box and dismissing the whole idea based on the lies and misrepresentations is ridiculous.

Communism as an economic system is what we need to solve our economic problems, communism as a political party seeking power is what we don't want. So arguing against communism based on political parties is pretty dumb. True communism/socialism is ultimately state/government free.

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)

Capitalism is what requires a state system, not communism/socialism. The state is what gives capitalists the right to use their property in a economic fashion and to hire wage labour. It was the state that implemented the 'inclosure laws' that started the change from feudalism to capitalism in the first place.

edit on 12/8/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 9-12-2012 @ 12:19 AM by Honor93
reply to post by ANOK

We don't need political parties to have a socialist (worker ownership) economy
while i agree with this statement entirely, perhaps you could clarify something for me ?

in this "worker ownership" economy ... what happens when you are not a "worker" ??
or, if you are not a worker in the field you need service ??

in this "worker ownership" situation, who manages/owns the resources required to produce ?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^