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

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?

I don't see why people have such hatred for communism. In it's essence, it's probably one of the best ideologies that there is.

You shouldn't bemoan the ideology, only the people that hijack it and take advantage to become a dictator in an ideology that is not supposed to have one leader.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

withdrawn

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.

Originally posted by domasio
I don't see why people have such hatred for communism. In it's essence, it's probably one of the best ideologies that there is.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Just because you brought it up, McCarthy was subsequently proven right. So not the best comparison.

I think it is a fine comparison. The point is...and while I think I may agree that I missed the point about the hearing...that the problem with ideological 'identification' or the adverse thereof results in a witch hunt mentality that ends up screwing with the original intent of the ideology. What did McCarthy do? Champion corporate ideology by exposing people who wanted to help other people? Pfft...

It's a complicated social scene in the past (pre-internet). I concede I may have overstepped my impressions though due to a lack of familiarity with his story...going to find it...

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?

Neither capitalism or communism kill people. Both can be abused by violent power brokers, who use their advantages to kill people. Neither are inherently violent systems if implemented correctly.

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.

Originally posted by blackcube
Your "legitime case" was priceless. In the apartheid era... sure...

When my country was under dictatorship... there were a lot of these legit cases too.

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

Are you in the US or Canada, because if you are I hate to tell you but the dictatorship hasn't left just yet.

BTW, if you haven't seen a necklacing "live" (I have) or you haven't seen the pipe bombs killing innocents (I have after the fact), then you really don't understand how bad mandela and his marxist buddies really are. The UN and IMF promoted a world view inversion and used financial extortion to get mandela released. Terrorists are now heroes, heroes are terrorists and every common citizen, a criminal.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted 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.

So your belief is that the Communist Party of South Africa was, finally, the "true" Communist Party?

No, it was just an extension of the Russian/Cuban/Chinese parties. Meaning that all of the evil that those held, it embraced, couched in some bizarre ideology.

Originally posted by adjensen
So your belief is that the Communist Party of South Africa was, finally, the "true" Communist Party?

No, it was just an extension of the Russian/Cuban/Chinese parties. Meaning that all of the evil that those held, it embraced, couched in some bizarre ideology.

Did I say that? I actually have no idea what the SA Communist Party was about.

I think I said in a nutshell don't trust political parties, because most all of them are only concerned with power. We don't need political parties to have a socialist (worker ownership) economy.

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 ?

Originally posted by Honor93
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 ?

All of us are workers. The workers own and manage all resources based on community needs.

Most work we do now is unnecessary and would disappear once the need for profit is ended. Work would stop being the majority of our existence. We would only work to produce what we need, rather than over produce useless garbage, that we are convinced we need from the artificial creation of desire, in order to make someone else rich.

We were already heading in this direction before the inclosure laws forced people off the land, and started the change from late feudalism to capitalism.

Feudal Origins of Capitalism

reply to post by domasio

Originally posted by domasio
I don't see why people have such hatred for communism. In it's essence, it's probably one of the best ideologies that there is.

You shouldn't bemoan the ideology, only the people that hijack it and take advantage to become a dictator in an ideology that is not supposed to have one leader.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

That's worked out really well for China hasn't it?
As theory I agree, it sounds great, it just never works out that way.
Regarding Mandela is he a communist?
Does the ANC act more communist/socialist or capitalist?
Those who live there can answer this question for all of us.