Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Wendigo]

Xyz's other argument goes .....

If they were killed by communists they were bad people for not doing what the state told them to do

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

If they were killed by communists they were bad people for not doing what the state told them to do .......

..... You mean practice this lifestyle

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

So if according to you money is neutral?
Is it debt that is not neutral?

Money is a tool. Standards of measure are tools. The Muslims have some way of banking and credit without interest payments, but I am not sure how that works. Debt appears to be useful. For example, I loaned part of my earnings to the government in exchange for future income and medical services, which are now being provided to me.

Money, debt, credit, even property rights are tools with their uses. They are neutral. Just as hammer is neutral. Driving nails with a hammer is good. Hitting your neighbor in the head with a hammer is usually bad.

You may want to brush up on your Marxist theory. Fetishizing commodities seems to be eluding you.

[Roubignol]

Here I answer to deepsepia and Brian, because money and fetishism of the commodities are deeply relied.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Money is a tool.

[...]

You may want to brush up on your Marxist theory. Fetishizing commodities seems to be eluding you.

"Fetishizing commodities" is not eluding me. It's even the heart of the philosophy of Karl Marx.

According to Marx, money will disappear, when (if) humanity will transcend itself.
Money is a primitive tool.
Everything will become free.

Capitalism is a transition to a better and more developped society called Communism.

Just look at what happened with "free software, free music".
The internet, the freewares, the "free" exchange of concepts and cultures are the first steps of a worldwide Communist society.

It was the pressure of Capitalist majors helped by reactionary states (like France or USA), that fought against free exchange of movies, books or musics by limiting trades and imposing controls because of copyright.

Why? Because sadly artists still need money to live, to buy food... but in a Communist world, they will exchange their arts without being afraid to starve.

Money is a tool of domination. It's the symbol of a primitive humanity. A humanity that counts its coins instead to share its experience.

Do I explain well Marx philosophy? Am I clear enough?

I repeat, my friends, my close genetics cousins, you have to think "Communist" asap. You have to free yourself of the dictatorial form of State runned by vicious policians, you have to free yourself of a dictatorial vintage form of economy.

On the Jewish question, Marx exactly asked to Jews (but to all the believers) to free themselves of their religions.

Marx = the philosopher of Freedom.

[Sir Honkers]

Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future is of course, the perfect form of communism realised; but it's never going to happen. Humankind is too fractured for us every to achieve a common good. Look us, we can't even agree to save ourselves from the ravages of climate change.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

According to Marx, money will disappear, when (if) humanity will transcend itself.
Money is a primitive tool.
Everything will become free.

{snip}

Marx = the philosopher of Freedom.

So, one more time, Pol Pot did this. He put it into effect.

Everything did not "become free"

What _actually_ happened is that the Party decided what you had, whether you could eat, whether you got shot.

See, this is why its important to study what actually happens in the real world.

When there are no private transactions, someone -- the Party-- decides who gets what.

And that's very far from "freedom" -- its totalitarianism. The "total" control of every activity in society by the Party.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

So, one more time, Pol Pot did this. He put it into effect.

Everything did not "become free"

What _actually_ happened is that the Party decided what you had, whether you could eat, whether you got shot.

See, this is why its important to study what actually happens in the real world.

When there are no private transactions, someone -- the Party-- decides who gets what.

And that's very far from "freedom" -- its totalitarianism. The "total" control of every activity in society by the Party.

There are several ways to reach the Communist state.

1) through an extremely brutal revolution (as Pol Pot did). It's wrong.

or
2) by the global elevation of positive conscience. It will last more time.

Sadly in the past even if a majority of people wanted to reach the Communist state, they had to suffer the Capitalist way of life and its incredible brutality.
Nobody is more brutal that someone who has his whims unsatisfied, who needs to parasite the effort of the brave worker. It's the same with a Capitalist state.
It's a fight to death between Communism and Capitalism, as long as Capitalist people would not be able to be more filled by contentment.

We have seen that during all the conflits that Capitalist countries have perpetrated against wrong or good Socialist attempts.
(As long as we both agree that Socialism is the state of transition between Capitalism and Communism).

Did Cambodia, Vietnam or Laos attacked France or USA on their soils? Never.
Did Chili, Brasil, Argentina, Colombia, Equador, Cuba or Venezuela foment "coups d'Etat" against UK, France or USA? Never.

You can tell me what you want. Capitalism is not democratic and rich and middle class Capitalist people live well (have their whims satisfied) because they get slaves all around the world working at low cost price for them.


What you always forget to point is, that the Party (in a real Communist state) represents THE PEOPLE. People of a better grade as Brian defined real Communist people.

About money.

Nothing proves better how money is a dubious tool than when it's used after a bargaining.

What is the real price of a commodity or a service after a bargain?
The initial price, the first price answered, all the transitional prices or the final price?

When your administration comes and tells you: We have spent 600 billion $ in weaponry. Let me give you an advice, I'm sure that if you bargained a little bit, you could get the same weaponry for 50 billion $

Economy is a fake science based on lies.

[haroldeye]

A brilliant post 69.

Just a point or two.

That nasty Pinochet chap had a coup against a democratically elected govt, and was not terribly nice to the people he ousted. He did eventually hand control back to democratically elected politicians and Chile is one of the richest and most stable countries in S America.

That nice Mr Castro overthrew a nasty and corrupt regime and was not terribly nice to the people he ousted and anyone else who got in his way. He never handed control to anyone except his brother and Cuba is not exactly flourishing.

Maduro turned Venezeula from one of the richest countries in the area to one of the poorest in less than 18 years.

It depends on one's attitude to Socialism as to how it is defined. The hard left in the UK, (CPGB,SWRP, and other such groups) use the word to hide their true purpose. They are Marxists and Communist and they want to level the nation to the lowest common denominator. The center parties in the UK use the word to describe what the hope they stand for, Social Justice, the application of brakes and rudder to Capitalism in order to make capitalism work for everyone.

Have you ever thought about getting out and about instead of reading the books of other people who needed to get out a bit more?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

T
2) by the global elevation of positive conscience. It will last more time.

Gosh "global elevation of positive conscience"

-- how's that work, exactly? Has it ever happened, anywhere? There are a lot of countries and movements that call themselves "communist" -- I can't recall any doing what you suggest

Originally Posted by xyzde69

What you always forget to point is, that the Party (in a real Communist state) represents THE PEOPLE. People of a better grade as Brian defined real Communist people.

Here you make your totalitarianism explicit. So because Mao's and Pol Pot's cadres represent "THE PEOPLE" -- they're free to go into a village, confliscate all the food and cooking and farming equipment from "the people who just happen to live there" -- and starve them. And indeed, "THE PEOPLE" are free to murder all of "the people" who'd prefer not to starve.

That's really a sick vision you have here.

How can you close your eyes to the scale of this slaughter?

Pol Pot tried to do exactly what you're advocating. He ended up murdering and starving fully a quarter of the country's population.

That's staggering. Are your communists sill "THE PEOPLE" when they kill all "the people"?

Why?

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

There are several ways to reach the Communist state.
......

2) by the global elevation of positive conscience. It will last more time.

Exactly how many vodkas had you drunk before you type that load of old codswallop????

global elevation of positive conscience WTF !!!!!!

What episode of Monty Python was that from as it appears to be missing from my collection

Originally Posted by xyzde69

People of a better grade .... real Communist people.

I've ignored the rest of the tripe you posted and can answer the above in just a few words ....... get ready

Total utter bollocks

As Harold said you need to get out more and stop reading books written by verbose pseudo intellectual sociopath dipshits.

Nice you keep apologising for mass murderers, as long as they hum the red flag as they rape and plunder......

Communism a sad pathetic political fantasy for those Billy Liar style dreamers.

I'd sooner have my piles flare up again than live under any regime you would support