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

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Well there are many organisations for communism, they don't create the definition of the term and they all have different ideas as how to implement communism.

But the final goal of all true communist organizations is worker ownership of the means of production. Otherwise known as free-association.

A free association of producers, free from the restraints of private ownership of the means to produce.

So if an organization doesn't support worker ownership, it isn't communist. But you have to be careful, don't trust communist "parties" and such, the mainstream of politix, they lie.

Communism doesn't have to be anything to do with government. Anarchism is communist.




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by ANOK
 


I quoted Lenin's words because the OP was based on him.

They all stink anyway.


Yes all politicians stink, but communism and socialism were movements of the people long before left wing terms were appropriated by governments in order to control dissent.

"As Socialism in general, Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people." From the book 'Modern Science and Anarchism' p.5, Peter Kropotkin, 1908



edit on 1/2/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
I believe that unless you've read the Communist Manifesot, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, State and Revolution: by Lenin, the Foundations of Leninism, The New Class: Djilas, Combat Liberalism (communists detest liberalism), I do not believe that you have right to talk about it.


Did you read this part of the Communist Manifesto


In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.


So do you think it is OK for a group of people that share an ideology to enforce there will upon me and steal the belongings I have worked for, as has been done to other people that lived in communist countries.

Would it be OK with you if I started a movement called Cavracism, which could be summed up in one sentence that Cavrac owns everything, would you mind if I sent my army/police to your house and confiscated anything of yours that I wanted.


Communism and Capitalism are both forms slave management Capitalism just has more freedom.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Im not speaking for Communism but I woumder about a couple things...

Communism is always competing with capitalism which is difficult then to determine its quallities, if any.

With all the mass production technology thanks to hyper motivated capitalism, if utilized by communism or socialism, it would make short work for all the necessary needs of society. I'm sure the Military has contributed plenty as well but due to "national security" it can never be disclosed. If there was such thing as Communism without dictatorship, it would sure be cool to play with in todays technological environment.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Dear ANOK,

Thank you very much for your kind and helpful reply. Clearly, this is my opportunity to learn. Mind a few questions?

But the final goal of all true communist organizations is worker ownership of the means of production. Otherwise known as free-association.

A free association of producers, free from the restraints of private ownership of the means to produce.

Communism doesn't have to be anything to do with government.


Imagine a factory that makes cookware, pots and pans. The factory has 100 workers. The factory, the ground it's on, it's supply of raw materials and finished products, is worth $100 million. Can a worker say "I'm tired of this, I'm going to Cuba to live out my life where it's warm?" Can he draw $1 million as his share? If 51 workers thinks it's a good idea, can they sell the whole factory and take off, or does it take a unanimous vote?

Do the workers get paid in dollars spendable anywhere or do they receive tickets good for food, etc.? Can a worker start up his own one-man business?

Can the government impose any regulations and rules on the factory? Can they require a certain level of production? Do the workers get paid for showing up? Paid for the amount of hours they put in? Or perhaps, a percentage of the sales? Are there taxes? Do they sell ther pots and pans or are they transferred to a workers' collective to be drawn on as needed?

Sorry for all the questions, but I have even more and wanted to stop before you were swamped.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
What place has art in the worker's paradise? It is a tool ,not an expression.
Well that pretty well covers my opinion about uncle Joe's grandchild may it rot in deepest hell.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Who cares?

A better question is why are those with an intimate knowledge of communism so against it?

Please pick a country you believe is Communist then try to find citizens who are excited to live there.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Again. Why must I ask why ask why so many people are responding not knowing the works of communism? Are so many on ATS such idiots? Please. Pretty please. Only respond if you meet the requirments. Please.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The only person whom has replied whom has obviously read the works is Anok. What a surprise.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
Again. Why must I ask why ask why so many people are responding not knowing the works of communism? Are so many on ATS such idiots? Please. Pretty please. Only respond if you meet the requirments. Please.


The question in the title of this thread is

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

but you only want people who have read your book list and agree with you to answer this question, and anyone else that responds is an idiot.

This does not make sense to me.

Since you have asked "Pretty please" I will not post anymore in your thread

I think you are a little too emotionally attached to your ideologies to discuss them rationally and consider different points of view on them

see ya
edit on 3-1-2013 by cavrac because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
The answer, IMO, to the question in the title is that

Our current leading society is focusing on the experience of Capitalism and Individualsim,
so the members have been encouraged and conditioned to reject all forms of collectivist values.

As a collective, we have gone into the experience of Communism on a grand scale and been able to then determine what the problems are that arise between the theory and practice. Now, we are in the midst of an experience in it's opposite, and will be able to determine the problems in it that arise between theory and practice.

When this experience has fallen apart completely, perhaps we will focus on moderation between indidivualism and collectivism, rather than going into one extreme or another?
In any case, we are not in that phase just quite yet.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
The only person whom has replied whom has obviously read the works is Anok. What a surprise.


It's easy when you can make it up as you go along.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
It's easy when you can make it up as you go along.


Really? The quotes and links I provide are made up as I go along also?

It's easier to just claim someone is making it up than to actually check the research and compose an intelligent response isn't it?



If you know so much maybe you can answer this question, if socialism is not worker ownership then in what aspect are anarchists socialists? Because anarchists support government? Maybe it's you that needs to educate yourself in order to understand what is being made up and what isn't.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin, 1814-1876

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

What am I making up exactly I'd love to know, I am always prepared to learn and improve my understanding?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sconner755
 


We are not discussing "communist" countries, we discussing the economic system of communism.

There are no countries with communist economies, only governments who call themselves communist.

Communism isn't just a name, it's an economic system, and if that economic system is not in place then the economy is not communist, no matter what the government calls itself.

For example would you call the system they had in East Germany democratic? Anyone who knows would say no it wasn't. Yet the nation called itself the German Democratic Republic, DDR.

Governments lie, you all know that, yet when it comes to "communism" all of a sudden the governments are telling the truth, even the despotic Russians and Chinese.


edit on 1/3/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NysgjerrigDame
 


It is a complete failure since it promotes a sense of utopia when in reality people need incentives in a society. Those incentives are what keep people trying to do better and become more. Without them, a society stagnates as people seek the only compensation offered (less effort needed for a minimum compensation)

Communism has killed MILLIONS of people in its short history. We can say that Marxists communism is an advocate of violent revolution as a preferable means to societal change. It promotes an "anything goes" philosophy that it justifies as legitimate in establishing a "perfect" utopian society. This has never been the case because when all opposition was removed, the force and strength of the state is then turned on the people so the state can keep its high level of control and interference in peoples lives. (Fascism).

Communism like socialism leads to an ever growing government that with every passing moment has greater public expenditure with less return in public benefits. As government spending on itself increases, the people get less of their own resources for their own existence and less is invested in them.

In the end the many types of communism and any form of socialism are always advocated by the pulling of heart strings so as to distort facts and paint a picture that those who only want power can use to get it. It is always a "morally" fueled argument, an emotionally charged mentality, and a rabid sense of hysteria that advocates what is not based in logic, fact, and practice.

Would it be nice? Sure. I would also like to be He-man and date She-ra....but nice and ideal have no place in the real world where people´s lives hang in the balance as do their dinner tables and wallets that depend on a stable system that rewards their efforts with just compensation, NOT a pat on the back for their solidarity.

You mentioned Spain? They had a Marxist insurgency that stole the elections and made the republic which sparked the controversy that led to the coup by Franco. The republic talked a nice game but did nothing while in power to address the issues the people were facing. Then during the civil war that followed the communists employed criminals they hired from captured prisons or other hell holes to go on terror campaigns against civilian opposition, raping and pillaging like barbaric devils. The Marxists communists were known as the red terror for their tactics.

It is a fairy tale that selfish and often lazy people advocate out of spite or over emotional baggage they do not address personally so they externalize it in their political ideology. It has had no success anywhere and all the defense of it can say is that it failed for its implementation in less than perfect purity of the concept. They ignore the many dictatorships that it has made and the many MILLIONS of people that died in direct consequence of it.

For any lover of freedom and leftist ideals to advocate it is contradictory and shows how little they do not understand it as well as how little of history they have read outside of the books that sell them communism itself.

MY family saw first hand what the communists did in Spain. They were enemies of the people and out for their own criminal power grab at all costs and over all the dead and tortured bodies necessary to get it.

My great uncle fought for Castro in Cuba. When the war was over they made him cut sugar cane in the sun for years as slave labor. If he thought to protest this, ask for a transfer, or tried to do anything but cut sugar cane like a slave in horrible conditions, he would have been beaten or worse. My grandmother in Cuba almost got arrested and would have been killed for having a couple steaks that were illegal. I could tell you all the stories that I have heard, but from a Spaniard whose family was brutalized by the communists, and a Cuban descendant whose family fought FOR communism at one point only to be made into a slave and for his family to live in abject poverty and fear, I can safely say I don't like communism.

What I find amusing is that the proponents of communism or even socialism cant believe that some one wouldn't like the idea of it. That if we don't agree we MUST be ignorant of it or don't understand it. It is funny how little they know of it beyond what limited books they have memorized about it. It is beyond them that some one can completely understand how it works and NOT support it, so they call us ignorant, dumb, or evil.

They are dirty radicals that would jeopardize every ones well being, safety and happiness for childish and reckless ideas and then walk away like cowards as they have always done when communism showed its teeth and its true intentions.

edit on 3-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz

It is a complete failure since it promotes a sense of utopia


Hmm that's not true either.

There was a utopian form of socialism that was pre-capitalism, people like Robert Owen, the farther of the cooperative movement.

But that died out by 1840 and replaced by scientific socialism.

Socialism is not a utopia, it is simply workers owning the means to produce, the only way people will be truly liberated. It will not be without it's problems like any economic system.


Scientific socialism refers to a method for understanding and predicting social, economic and material phenomena by examining their historical trends through the use of the scientific method in order to derive probable outcomes and probable future developments. It is in contrast to what later socialists referred to as "utopian socialism"; a method based on establishing seemingly rational propositions for organizing society and convincing others of their rationality and/or desirability. It also contrasts with classical liberal notions of natural law, which are grounded in metaphysical notions of morality rather than a dynamic materialist or physicalist conception of the world. [2]


en.wikipedia.org...-2
edit on 1/3/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Communism promises a world of happy smiling workers where no social injustice or tensions can exist.

Hence I say utopia.

Socialism too to a degree. !"oh the workers own their own production so they would not screw over each other" and "its capitalism that makes people do bad things out of greed", "that cant exist in a workers paradise"....

FAKE UTOPIA...



the only way people will be truly liberated.


Liberated? From what? Will they then get to decide how government is operated? NO, they just get an illusion of control over their work....The only way?.....how about owning your own business and being able to tell the government to go to hell.....pick up your crap and leave, or pay for your won security in life. That is not a way, no.

It is emotional dribble based on high strung passions that prey on our sense of humanity.

BS.

You can have your personal ideals and sense of morality, but leave society to try for stability and prosperity.
edit on 3-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by ANOK
 


Communism promises a world of happy smiling workers where no social injustice or tensions can exist.

Hence I say utopia.


Actually no it doesn't. Please show me where it says that. Anybody thinking that is rather naive.

Socialism doesn't promise anything. It's just a fact that worker ownership works better than private ownership in creating equality and providing for communities.

It's only it's distractors that want to paint it like some magical place where no one is unhappy and we all live happily ever after, making socialism appear impossible. We should NEVER be happy with any system, we should always be striving to improve our lives. It doesn't end at socialism.

But having said that shouldn't we be striving for utopia, like we strive for perfection, even though we know it can never be reached? If you don't reach for the highest high then you'll never even reach mediocre.

Also if socialism is utopia then you must agree Russia was not socialist? So many contradicting arguments against socialism.

Also Castro was not a communist lol, he did that to piss off the Americans for the embargo and the refusal to invest in their corn crop. The Russians stepped in and took the deal. Also what came before Castro was far worse, the Batista regime, typically you've just bought into the propaganda and spin. Cubas economic problems are because of the American embargo, not because of communism.

It's so easy to fall for the propaganda of blaming communism, you have to look a little deeper.

edit on 1/3/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NysgjerrigDame
 


Some great memories here in Poland of communism. My favorite saying? As long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work.(you could not buy much and were not paid in internationally traded currency).

In highschool I was a huge believer in communism, but then I came to live here, and I realized the idea will always be abused. Keep dreaming, but if you travel to a former Warsaw pact country you will understand why Marx has such a reputation.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Actually no it doesn't. Please show me where it says that. Anybody thinking that is rather naive.

Socialism doesn't promise anything. It's just a fact that worker ownership works


you just did promise something....




better than private ownership in creating equality and providing for communities.


There is nothing contradicting. I said they BOTH promise utopias. I only mentioned socialism since you threw that in here, though I feel similarly about it. I was talking about Communism. You are trying to construct an ad hominem by mixing up my arguments on purpose. You are a vehement defender of socialism and portray it as the light of the world. You are a tad bit unbalanced when it comes to this subject.


It's so easy to fall for the propaganda


indeed.

edit on 3-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join