Why is it that people with no knowledge of communism are so against it?

Originally posted by ANOK

But I thought Russia, China etc., were communists?

Funny how when people can't argue anymore against overwhelming evidence anymore, instead of conceding they have to switch to 'it can't work'.

Well if it can't work then how, in your mind, did the USSR survive so long as "communists".

It depends on what we are talking about here...the end state of an utopia communist world cannot be reached, China and Russia are communist, but were/are at different stages.

Can you provide one example of a successful communist scoity that made it to the end state?

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by NysgjerrigDame

 

For several very simple reasons.

They grew up being taught that America is the greatest nation ever, can never do any wrong and that communism is pure evil. Couple that with listening to Fox News and Glenn Beck or Limbaugh, where the word communism is constantly used, albeit incorrectly, every 10 minutes, they lose all critical thinking ability and they are programmed to automatically equate communism with evil. More importantly, they automatically equate Obama with communism and evil. It's disturbing to see how many ill informed, downright ignorant people are in the country and wandering about under the illusion that they understand what they say.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Wow...thats really something. Over 40 years in the U.S and i was never taught that. If listening to some radio host and that is their opinion then i dont consider it teaching or being taught, just someone giving their opinion. You either agree with it or not agree you can be also be indifferent.

I dont believe "communism" by definition has ever existed.

reply to post by openminded2011


Is Jesus, His disciples, and the early church as found in the book of Acts, communism?
Admittedly, they were concerned with the 'Kingdom of heaven', which made distribution of wealth and goods on the 'kingdom of earth' easier to do, as it wasn't the 'be all and end all'.
?
Not that I am suggesting Jesus was a communist. To imply so would be to belittle who He is and what He represents. There are some interesting ideals to be shared, but the 'natural man' is more inclined to violence and selfishness which prevents such an existence becoming anything other than another idealogy or man made religion.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Keep on dreaming about moonbeams and ponies......reading about communism is like reading a book of fiction. Never going to happen.

No one has stated that communism is wrong, it is just impossible to implement.

(and with people like you who are stating that right wing / capitalists are stupid and the OP who wants people that disagree to disappear / do not comment - no wonder we doubt your "for the people" claim, in any communists / socialist society eventually an individual with those very attitudes will show up and the rest of us will be # out of luck)

Use memes all you want, it's not clever.

Right-wingers actually DO tend to be dumber than left-wingers, and I'm not sorry to say it because it makes perfect sense. This is demonstrated both anecdotally and via actual scientific study.

I'm not a Communist. My entire point was that there are MANY INCARNATIONS OF SOCIALISM and that by attacking STATE-COMMUNISM you completely f***ing fail to address Socialism (or its offshoots) properly. By relying upon a worn out McCarthyist/cold-war/free-market view of the world, you simply fail when speaking to those who actually view Socialism scientifically.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

And THIS^^^ is why right-wingers/Capitalists are thought of as utterly stupid/uninformed.

Way to forget what you wrote.You said "your reading" of Hayek appeared to be advocating socialism, populism, etc. I said that's bull$hit, since, as someone with 7 Hayek books on my bookshelf, having studied his writings, I know that to interpret Hayek in such a light is as insane as claiming Darwn advocated creationism. In other words, what you claimed about Hayek is the exact opposite of what Hayek believed. The fact that you haven't expanded upon that claim shows you either haven't read hs writings, and only know of him, or are Bull$#ting for the thrill of it.

It's not bullsh**. I've read Hayek, and he DOES NOT advocate 100% purist free-markets. I've had arguments with a personal friend of mine who is a free-marketer, he lent me Road to Serfdom, I actually f***ing read it without hesitation, and realized that EVEN IN YOUR CAPITALIST GOD'S BOOKS he advocates certain levels of regulations/social safety nets/redistribution to help ameliorate imperfections in unrestrained Capitalism.

If you actually study Socialism, most of your claims will fall away for many of its incarnations. So... try again, fascist.

That is so pathetically weak. If you're able, address each of my points about the dangers of socialism. If my worries are unfounded, address them. Elucidate, instead of decrying my ignorance of socialism (which I know quite well).

It's not pathetically weak. What was PATHETICALLY WEAK was your initial comment where you fail to address Socialism and simply regurgitate the tired old example of extreme/despotic state-Communist societies. It's pure cherry-picking prejudice based on a narrow view of reality. If you analyze the spectrum of Socialism and concepts with Socialist leanings, you will NOT find tyrannical state-Communism as its result, period.

Originally posted by clapper
Hey I am from China... technically we are still living in a Communism country(Communism political system combine with half Capitalism economy), I can tell Communism is not a good thing, it still affecting these days no matter how much works karl marx or other wisemen had done on paper, Communism had killed people, millions and millions, Destroyed traditions culture and integrity.

I don't think anyone's disputing that.

State-Communism leads to extreme tyranny and oppression.

What's even WORSE is that China not only experiences the worst of Communism but also the worst of CAPITALISM. These are two dogs that need to just die off.

Communism is great - providing you are one of the "animals that is more equal than the others".

reply to post by NoHierarchy

What's even WORSE is that China not only experiences the worst of Communism but also the worst of CAPITALISM.

And yet, China is economicaly the fastest growing country for the past few decades, with hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty, and is better off in most areas when compared to other developing nations. State capitalism works great for them.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

regulations/social safety nets/redistribution to help ameliorate imperfections in unrestrained Capitalism.

So that means he's an advocate of socialism? You read ONE Hayek book - road to serfdom - and based on that you jump to the conclusion that, in your haphazard words: "and the funny thing I've found is that they actually ADVOCATE for populist regulations/welfare/redistribution/Socialism to a certain extent to right the wrongs of Capitalism. ". Based on a few modest concessions to things which most rational people can understand a purpose for. You overzealously leap to extreme conclusions about what Frederich Hayeks political beliefs were. You're a joke. It would have been better not to have mentioned that you've only read one of his writings (his earliest, and least explanatory). Add to your reading list: the fatal conceit and the constitution of liberty, if you want to understand the subtleties of Hayeks actual political positions.

Hayeks general theory is this. People can't be trusted with too much power. For example, the Nazis inherited the socialist architecture built into the German government by successive German governments from Bismarck to the weimar republic. The conclusion being, the original irenic intent of german socialists contained within it the possibility of evil people inheriting that power. That's the vital question: can the people who hold such power be trusted to let democracy run it's course? Or will they try, as the Nazis and communists did, to shape for themselves a "utopia", which involves undermining the will of the people they're there to represent?

It's not pathetically weak. What was PATHETICALLY WEAK was your initial comment where you fail to address Socialism and simply regurgitate the tired old example of extreme/despotic state-Communist societies. It's pure cherry-picking prejudice based on a narrow view of reality. If you analyze the spectrum of Socialism and concepts with Socialist leanings, you will NOT find tyrannical state-Communism as its result, period.

Judging from your name and your overall angry tone, you seem like a radical who believes a society without "hierarchy", a basic construct of human reality, is possible.

I'm really not as dogmatically attached to "capitalism", or rather, decentralized government, as you're obsessively tied down to your idea of a "no hierarchy" utopia.

I live in Canada. I'm for a mixed system, with the option for private health care for those who choose it. However, as I pointed out above, I oppose this extremist viewpoint which sees communism as a panacea, a ticket towards Utopia, when over and over and over again pure marxism has resulted in economic privation and the evisceration of liberty.

reply to post by Maslo


All hail China!!! the great supporter of human rights and equality for all!!!

The problem is that most people have no clue what communism really is.
There are 3 stages
1-overthrowing the current leaders
2-socialism
3-then finally communism. but at that stage it turns into anarchy, a true communist government will cease to exist after there is no more privately held lands or business.

so in truth, there has never been a true communist government.

reply to post by rickm


Socialism is not a stage of communism, they are both the same thing. The Marxist stage to communism/socialism is the 'transition period', the dictatorship of the proletariat.

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. Thus when Marx in 1875 (as mentioned by Lenin) wanted to make the distinction referred to by the Daily Worker, he spoke of the “first phase of Communist society” and “a higher phase of Communist society.” Engels, writing in the same year, used the term Socialism, not Communism, and habitually did so afterwards. Marx also fell, more or less closely, into line with this change of names and terms, using sometimes the one, sometimes the other, without any distinction of meaning.

www.marxists.org...

because in every country that is communist

the people live in poverty, oppression

and the history of it is; millions die due to the ravages of one dictator taking control

this is why

reply to post by ANOK


actually it is....

Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).

The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.

www.marxmail.org...

why don't you go live in say

north korea for a while and report back to us on how it is

reply to post by rickm


No, all that is a myth.

Socialism and communism mean the exact same thing. Read what I linked to, that is from a Marxist website.

Organizations calling themselves communist or socialist might use the terms differently.

reply to post by Artistic


There are no true communist countries, only authoritarian governments who used left-wing terms to gain power.

Unless the workers own the means of production it is not a communist/socialist nation.

Communism/socialism is an economic system, not a form of government.

reply to post by WaterBottle


You read about it while others testify who have actually lived it. Perhaps get your head out of your ideological cloud and face reality.




Ideological subversion to destroy America.

1. Demoralization of a nation. Takes 15-20 years
2. Expose population to Marxism
3. Create a crisis
4. Period of "normalization".

That's the plan. Obama is following it precisely. We are in step 2. The crisis is coming.

Resist being consumed by the ploy. Or die at its end results.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


LOL what a load of nonsense. Obama is a liberal, not a Marxist, or even a socialist.

"Liberalism is not socialism, and never will be" - Winston Churchill, as Liberal Party candidate for Dundee, 1908

First you should learn what Marxism is. For a start Marxism is not socialism, it's a political path to socialism, and not all socialists are Marxists.

Obama obviously doesn't support the workers because Chrysler workers have been trying to get him to support their buyout of the company for years. If he was a socialist he would be supporting it, not too mention the rest of the labour movement who want worker ownership.

They tried in 2007, and 2009...

Chrysler Workers Urge Obama to Support Ownership Push

The time is over for these lies, the people must know the truth! Deny ignorance.

It's enough to read about the iedology itself, and Communism never really happened, just intermediary stages.