Donate to promoting Capitalism in Communist Countries, NadaRed Vodka

[2046]

Well, see, you just wasted your time here. I don’t care if communism is irrational, anti-man, or whatever. No one is even trying to defend communism here, so I don’t know what is the point of this useless rambling you just did here.

Oh but you see, that is exactly the point here. If there is no "true" communism in reality then it is actually a waste of time to pretend as if the pointless ramblings you made regarding Venezuela or Soviet Russia or Cuba being non-communist and tantamount to capitalist dictatorships or any of the sentences you've been constructing in this thread is anything but senseless fantasizing about the irrational. Socialism is based on a systematic rejection of reality, so it is rather pointless to postulate and make projections about the nature of "true communism" versus those false Bolsheviks who weren't "democratic" enough for you to allow them to be called communists.

If words have to stand for things in reality, then those states are communist states operating as they were according to Marxist-Leninist-Maoist doctrines and those property-rights hating "libertarian socialists" and their apologists who don't like that should be ostracized as irrationalists making senseless schemes about how best to go about the "proper" way to enslave men and you can commit to stop ejaculating about anarcho-communism in every thread that someone makes references to various the various Marxist/Maoist dictatorships and socialist juntas around the world.

Anyone who calls for socialism, the prohibition of private property, and prohibition of private ownership in the means of production is a communist and any system based on socialism, communism, or "anarchism" or anything involving the abolition of private property positively requires totalitarian dictatorship. (In fact, the self-proclaimed libertarian socialists of 1930's Spain instituted the death penalty for anyone attempting to use money. But of course we will be told that isn't real, true, proper communism, that's just the capitalist bourgeois exploitation machine at work.)

Edited February 7, 2010 by 2046

[aequalsa]

Non-prison planetish sources for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

"When he graduated from law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington, D.C., and moved to San Francisco instead.[15] He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics"

"STORM initially included anarchists, communists and revolutionary nationalists, but after some internal, personal struggles the anarchists left, and STORM become more communist-oriented. The internal crisis had reduced the group to just six members. STORM considered Mao Zedong as their ideological leader and as an atheist organization expressed deep dislike of religion. STORM was also different than its predecessor group RAW because it had some white members, whereas RAW had been comprised only of people of color;"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/j...socialist-ties/

Here is loyd on video praising chavez's "democratic revolution"

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-mot...emocratic-revol

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581958,00.html

What we're really saying is that the Fairness Doctrine's not enough and that having a — having a sort of overarching rule that says, you know, broadcasters ought to be fair, ought to provide issues important to communities and that they ought to do it in a fair and balanced way is simply enough unless you put some teeth into that and put some hard structural rules in place that are going to result in fairness

We have really, truly good white people in important positions and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions and unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to — you have to say, who is going to step down so someone else can have power?

Anyway...this stuff is common knowledge and undisputed by the people themselves. You can do more google searches if actually your curious or want to write a paper, but there is no doubt in my mind that these men are marxists-willing to compromise, of course, and just be socialists. Neither do I have any doubt that the individual who would put marxists and socialists(which was the next step on the way to communist utopia, right?) into power shares their views in all meaningful ways.

[JMeganSnow]

Good grief, this entire thread is nothing but a living, breathing example of the mind/body split and the moral/practical dichotomy. I should copy it and send it to Dr. Peikoff so he can use it in lectures.

You might as well say that Christians aren't ACTUALLY Christians because no one can ACTUALLY follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (how's that lilies of the field thing working out for ya'll?) so anyone who has done ANYTHING to attempt to practice those ideas has self-excluded from being called a Christian.

Communist nations are called communist (or socialist, or semi-communist) not because they have ACHIEVED the impossible Marxist fantasy but because of their declared intention to implement that or a very similar goal "somehow". Christians are Christians for the same reason, not because any of them have actually managed to get to heaven.

Sheesh.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

2014, I’m done with this. Seriously, it’s not hard to understand. OK, let’s just ignore (I’ll just quote from myself) that:

centralized coordination of production, wage labor, non-existing common ownership of the means of production, market-based reforms, totalitarian pro-bourgeoisie bureaucratic states, social class divisions, diverse forms of private property, no democratic control of workers over production, institutions, communities, etc. etc. or, in fact, even better, no democratic control of the working people over anything, they're virtual slaves

You know, just the core basic requirements of any communist society were absolutely perverted and violated, but who cares? OH, not you! Because, whatever, let’s just have A and non-A. Let’s just go around screaming: “It’s communism! It’s communism!” until someone actually believes us. Let’s just have capitalism with coercive tax-funding Government services and violation of property rights and call it “capitalism.” Let’s just call feudalism “communism”, and autocracies “communism”, and participatory democracy “communism.” You know, it's all cool to call the United States a "mixed economy", but China? OH, let's just call it "communism." How about applying to yourself the standards you apply to others? Who cares if Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba, China, etc are diametrically opposed to Karl Marx's writings?? I mean, they had the intention, RIGHT? Who cares if almost the entire marxist tradition, and most of its derivative marxist branches are in absolute conflict with them?? OH no, NOT YOU. Boy, IS THAT RATIONAL OR WHAT? Nice talking to you, "comrade." I'm wasting my time here.

Edited February 7, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Maximus]

"Jeez. what a maroon!" -- Bugs Bunny

[JMeganSnow]

You know, just the core basic requirements of any communist society were absolutely perverted and violated, but who cares?

There are no "core basic requirements" to have a communist society because no such society has ever existed or can exist. There are only the inescapable real-world effects of any ATTEMPT to produce such a society. On a small scale, there are communes. On a large scale, you have Soviet Russia. But Soviet Russia is not a result of a "perversion" of communism nor is it "not communism" as a result. It is *precisely* the result of the attempt to work the unworkable and do the impossible.

Do some reading on the nature of the moral/practical dichotomy.

[Howard Roark]

There are no "core basic requirements" to have a communist society because no such society has ever existed or can exist.

Excuse me, but this statement is a non sequitur. Every system has requirements. Economic models are defined by their conditions, regardless of their viability. You are accepting that a communist society has never existed, while declaring that it is appropriate to call non-existing communist societies "communist," regardless of their coherence with the basic conditions of a communist system. This is obviously a contradiction. If you know that communism can't be put into practice, then referring to these societies as "communist" is even more contradictory.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Howard Roark

[TheEgoist]

No real Marxist society could last that long, but it doesn't follow that we can dismiss the existence of a Marxist society at all based on some kind of weird ontological objection to its very existence.

Both of the groups in this argument are going way too far in their generalizations of the others.

[JMeganSnow]

Every system has requirements. Economic models are defined by their conditions, regardless of their viability.

Sorry, I meant that there are not "core basic requirements" in the sense of it must have X type of government which is non-violent, democratically elected, etc. etc. etc. because all that sweetness and light stuff that Marx preached about the inevitable decay of the state won't happen. In order for his share-and-share-alike worker's paradise to exist, someone is going to have to first acquire and then distribute the goods by force. The Soviet government violence is, in fact, the necessary result of an attempt to institute Marx's ideas no matter what Marx would have actually thought of that practice.

I do agree that the map is basically B.S.--there aren't any countries without a good dose of collectivism in there any more, not even the "anarchist's Paradise" Somalia (anarchy is ultimately just another form of collectivism--gang warfare, really, hence the Somali pirates).

And I understand that people do use communism to mean general collectivism more often than is necessarily warranted. But saying that a nation is not governed by a body that espouses communist ideals because it doesn't look like an Israeli kibbutz is B.S.

[Howard Roark]

Pardon me whilst I go jerk off to Noam Chomsky and Mikhail Bakunin for a while so we can be on the same page.

That is disgusting.