Communism

[Jason Baker]

"My list" is not "my list." "That list" would be the 10 planks of the communist manifesto and if you had read it in most cases I pointed out laws or events in this country that are currently in progress that match the planks. By the way, 7&8 typically don't happen in communist countries as the planks indicate because the peasantry that get the same reward no matter what quickly figure out working harder nets them no more than someone not working so quality and/or quantity typically drop.

Out of curiosity, where are you located that you do not pay property or income tax since *none* of these planks have been adopted?

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.---> Direct tax known as property tax and controls on how land can be used.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. --->Tomorrow

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.---> Not abolished, but subject to heavy depletion.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.----> RICO laws and events in the south come to mind.

5. Centralisation of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.--->More and more control is being exercised over banks.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. ----> FCC, TSA, and various other federal, state, and local agencies have ever growing control.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.--> Not improving, but controlling.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.---> Not yet, although we do have an army of those not working.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.---> Hmmmm..

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. ---> Indoctrination of useful idiots, etc.

 

[Handy]

Tell you what, Jason. Find me a country that does NONE of those things, to any degree.

 

[Jason Baker]

Oh, I am sure I probably can't. Most if not all do seem to be adhering to the planks quite well. I am sure they don't refer to themselves as communists also, however some do refer to themselves as socialist. As far as I am concerned though the name chosen really doesn't matter so much as the actions being taken. So once again where are you located that you pay no property or income tax since none of the planks have been adopted here?

 

[N.H. Yankee]

I have never meant a Liberal Democrat that will admit who and what they really are and what they really stand for and believe. I have given up debating or talking to them as it is a waste of time, lies and twisted facts are their playbook, the truth be damned. I feel that the Dems have taken most of their playbook right out of the communist playbook, Infiltrate and control schools, media, and Government. Who is it that spews out radical left wing lies and lunacy, PROFESSORS, who is it that feels they need to rewrite the constitution! What the school system does in many places is called indoctrination or brainwashing and that is just what the left does. Sadly many Democratic voters feel this is the same party that JFK led in the 60's but it isnt. The Democratic party has been hi-jacked by extremists and more and more of the base of the party drifts toward extremism. When a party has to resort to lies and character assassanation through the bias media instead of ideas to gain power there is a problem. The Dems use scare tactics on seniors and youth to get votes, if the media scrutinized Democrats like they do republicans, most Dems would have a hard time getting elected as dog catcher! The only way this country can be destroyed is from within like most great societies throughout history, and the Dems are the ones who can do it if allowed. There is a greater devide as the years go by between the left and the right, and it is the Dems who provoke class envy and warfare. I find it odd when a Dem like Byrd calls Repulicans NAZIS, the same man who was a KLU KLUX KLAN recruiter, the media and left call it passion and freedom of speech, the same media and left who would call for the removal of a Republican if he called the Dems NAZIS. The left accuses the right of hate speech, but its the left that practices it almost daily in the media. I have found that usually when the left gets on TV and start accusing the Republicans of somthing, it is usually them that is doing that exact thing, its called a smoke screen, and they get away with it because the media is just another co- conspiritor. As Hillary RODHAM Klingon said; ITS A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY! The definition of a liberal left wing activist is: domestic terrorist, when these people get together many protest turn violent by their making. The Republican party isnt perfect, but it sure as h#ll

 

[Handy]

Jason,

I have taxes, just like you and the rest of the world. I overgeneralized about your post.

Your point seems to be that communism is such an attractive, successful idea that it is being administered in every country in the world. And your proof is that every country has some laws that match Marx's manifesto.


That isn't a proof of anything. We could write a list of biological rules that determine if a creature is an octopus. If stated vaguely enough, you'd be telling people they are octopuses.


A few guidelines does not make the entire world communist or mollusk. It doesn't work that way. The end product and the goal of achieving it is what counts - not the similarity in ingrediants.

 

[Jason Baker]

Ok, I'll bite. What does define a communist?

I was basing my views on what The Communist Manifesto stated were basic conditions necessary for communism. I pointed out we have in place at least 7 of the 10 which is a majority. If by success you are meaning a country where everyone is equal from their head of state down to a ditch digger then no, that doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge. As I have stated over and over I don't really think equality is the actual goal of communism based on observing actual events which ends up with a super pampered elite ruling over powerless serfs. This is the outcome so often that I tend to doubt this was just an over sight on the part of Marx and Engels. However if it was their honest theory I think it has been proven false several times over.

 

[cpileri]

we should get our terms straight....

Forms of Government: (Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Republic, Dictatorship, Feudalism)

Monarchy
a form of government that has a monarch as Head of State. The distinguishing characteristic of monarchies is that the Head of State holds his offie for life, unlike in republics, where presidents are generally elected for a certain amount of time

 Absolute Monarchy
an absolute monarch has total power over its people and land - including the aristocracy. As a theory of civics, it puts total trust in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth - and often terrified for their lives

 Theocracy
a form of government in which the governmental rulers are identical with the leaders of the dominant religion, and governmental policies are either identical with or strongly influenced by the principles of the majority religion
There are different forms of theocracy. One is caesaro-papism, in which power is shared between a secular ruler (an emperor) and a religious leader (a pope). Theocracy can also be exercised directly by the clergy (as in Iran) or indirectly (such as via the divine right of kings).


Totalitarianisms:
forms of government in which all societal resources are monopolized by
the state in an effort to penetrate and control all aspects of public and
private life, through the state's use of propaganda, terror, and technology;
the individual exists to serve the state
Socialism
A social, political, and economic system in which the major industries are
nationalized, but which comes to power through the consent of the
governed.
 Communism
A social, political, and economic system characterized by the
revolutionary struggle to create a society which has an absence of classes,
the common ownership of the means of production and subsistence, and
centralized governmental control over the economy and society
Communism, or communist society is the name of the social formation, which, according to Marxism is a classless society in which all property is owned by the community as a whole and where all people enjoy equal social and economic status.
Communism in its original meaning is a social theory and political movement for the direct and communal control of society towards the common benefits of all members

Republic
a form of government (and a state so governed) based on the concept that sovereignty resides in the
people, who delegate the power to rule in their behalf to elected representatives and officials; where a monarch is not the head of state. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people. In some cases, a republic may be a dictatorial or totalitarian state. The term is also broad enough to include representative democracies

 Modern Democracy
A democracy is a form of government in which ordinary citizens may take part in governing, in contrast with a monarchy or dictatorship. In contemporary usage, democracy is often understood as the same as liberal democracy. Democracy in its modern sense is characterised as listed below. There are many other varieties of democracy, some hypothetical and some realized.
Modern democracy can be characterised by the following institutions:
Election of officials
Free and just elections
Universal suffrage
The right to vote and to stand for election
Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
Freedom of association
The rule of law
Access to alternative information sources
Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights."

 Plutocracy
A Plutocracy comprises a government system where wealth is the principal basis of power. In writings about history, plutocracy refers to the political control of the state by an oligarchy of the wealthy
 Oligarchy
Government by the few, especially families or wealthy

Dictatorship
A dictatorship is a government headed by a dictator or more generally any authoritarian or totalitarian government, and in opposition with a democracy. It is often considered equivalent to a police state, but the term dictatorship refers to the way the leaders gain and hold power, not the watch kept on the citizens. Some dictators have been popular enough not to have to employ many very oppressive measures.
-Interesting historical note:
Originally a legitimate military office in the Roman Republic, the dictator was given his powers by the Senate . The dictator had absolute power, but for a limited time. This was initially intended to deal with some state of emergency. In modern times, claims of such states of emergency are often used to justify seizures of power and suspensions of civil rights

 Fascism
A totalitarian philosophy or system of government that advocates or
exercises a dictatorship subjugating the individual to the state,
typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together
with an ideology of belligerent nationalism and racism.
According to Mussolini himself, it is a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. ...For the Fascist, everything is within the State and ... neither individuals or groups are outside the State. ...For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative."

Feudalism
Feudalism, or sometimes called the feudal system, in the present-day study of medieval history, often describes a legal and administrative order founded upon the exchange of reciprocal undertakings of protection and loyalty among the administrative, military and ecclesiastical elite; or between the poor and the rich.

 

[Handy]

Jason,

Communism certainly has been disproven in practice.

Moreover, the conditions you list are common to all government types.


What would be a slightly interesting connection was if those conditions were leading to EITHER idealized communism or at least Soviet type Communism. Neither is happening, here.

The Soviet model puts asset control in the state's hands. The rich and powerful members of such a society are the autocrats that run the state.

In the US, wealth and influence are focused in the hands of the most successful capitalists. The politicians do not grow rich or more powerful than their position demands, unlike their Soviet counterparts. That concentration of wealth by the ruling party is absolutely not happening in the US. So any similarities in policy or conditions are either coincidental, or at least not unique to communism.


If you believed what you're posting, you'd also believe that Bill Gates controls our armies and foreign policy, or is on the verge of such power.

 

[LAK]

Handy

Moreover, the conditions you list are common to all government types.

This is true; but it has largely come about in the 20th century that a great number of countries have been changed to conform in these regards through revolution - either by force or progressive political action.

What would be a slightly interesting connection was if those conditions were leading to EITHER idealized communism or at least Soviet type Communism. Neither is happening, here.

This depends on whether you consider some kind of time limit on the pronouncement. Certainly the changes in this country in this direction have been made since the 1930s - within the lifetime of my parents, both of whom are still alive to testify that things were not always so. It is no coincidence that the communist party became particularly active here in the 1930s and 40s, and the single well-known attempt to put a stop to them and their agenda centers around a well-known name.

 

[Handy]

Lak,

Are you talking about McCarthy, or Hoover? Both of which attempted to stop something that was largely phantom.


You are hanging on the same mis-logic as Jason. "Socialist" type reforms are not equivalent to communism, no matter how loudly declared on AM radio. "A common defense" by a federally mandated army is just as much a social reform as welfare - it is only a matter of degree.

Unrestricted capitalism IS anarchy. We don't practice either, here. That doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that we are becoming communists. In fact, it shows that we are fighting the possibility of communist insurection by continually addressing social problems, rather than letting them ferment.


You can't ease into communism. It is a violent upheaval. No amount of tax law or bread lines will create a communist state.

 

[LAK]

Handy

Are you talking about McCarthy, or Hoover? Both of which attempted to stop something that was largely phantom.

Well, wasn't it Hoover that said "there is no mob"? I don't know about Hoover, but McCarthy was not chasing any phantom. The fact is, we simply did not have many of the communistic elements here prior to the 1930s. Almost none. The taxation introduced to fund the war didn't go away - and it was nothing more than communistic political ideology that created excuse to maintain it, along with concepts like "the United Nations". Were this not the case I would agree with you.

You are hanging on the same mis-logic as Jason. "Socialist" type reforms are not equivalent to communism, no matter how loudly declared on AM radio. "A common defense" by a federally mandated army is just as much a social reform as welfare - it is only a matter of degree.

Arguement over what exactly is socialism as opposed to communism is moot; since socialism is to a significant degree the same as communism in principle, both are antagonistic or antithesis to our Constitutional republic, and both lead to fascism or tyranny.

The reason they inevitably lead to fascism or tyranny is simple. The "good intention" can never be realized since they rely on having incorruptible people at all the highest levels in all spheres of government and industry; like government administration and the issue and control of money, as well as the interface of government and industry itself. A nonstarter. A dead horse.

They are only ever used as a counter political system for changes of power.

Unrestricted capitalism IS anarchy.

Right, I agree. Capitalism as a political system is also a nonstarter. Another dead horse.

We don't practice either, here. That doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that we are becoming communists. In fact, it shows that we are fighting the possibility of communist insurection by continually addressing social problems, rather than letting them ferment.

And herein lies it's purpose in the modern geo-political world - an antithesis to communism. Thesis versus antithesis. The synthesis being our current altered state, and continuing to the next.

Communist insurrections of the revolutionary kind do not spontaneously erupt, are always well planned, organized, instigated, by educated people, and funded with huge sums of money. There was never talk of a "fermenting unrest" over socialist or communistic principles in this country prior to the 1930s; and it is not as if there were not any poor people in this country or those who envied the rich before that.

"Social problems" is a largely invented term. It presumes that if there are any people who are poor, there is a "problem". Whereas the educated in the old order know that utopia is an imaginary place, and that it is the charity of private persons and institutions that feed, cloth and shelter those who can not feed , cloth and shelter themselves - or fall into other mistfortune over which they have no control. Not government and not from the public purse, which is a socialist or communist concept used to justify an ever-increasing burden of taxation. An oppression.

More than a so-called "separation of church and State" - this country needs a separation of State and charity.

You can't ease into communism. It is a violent upheaval. No amount of tax law or bread lines will create a communist state.

Sometimes it is violent. The overthrow of the Tsar was violent. But there is a progressive m.o. that is as equally effective if a great deal slower, and it is usually employed where short term brute force can not be reasonably expected to prevail.

This country is an example, the Catholic Church is another. As it happens, one of the people who testified before our Congress on the subject of your "phantom" being chased by McCarthy, Bella Dodd, stated that she herself had recruited a large number of communist agents to infiltrate the Church via the Catholic seminaries during the 1930s and 1940s (It's no wonder there are a number of perverts amongst the hierarchy today).

Communism - like socialism - is a vehicle for change, and ultimately oppression and control. The m.o. is flexible but not hard to recognize.

 

[Handy]

LAK,

Every so-called Communist state arrived by way of war, invasion or violent revolution. USSR, China, N. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Socialism didn't cause any sort of slow and steady change in any of those places.


On the other hand, what are you thinking of when you say that modern socialism, as seen here and in Europe, has led to "oppression and control"? Name the country where taxation and socialized medicine, etc has created a nation that we would now call a totalitarian.


It's a non-starter. It has never happened. While you might take issue with individual laws and high tax rates, socialized European countries still enjoy nearly every freedom anyone on earth has ever had.

I'm not defending socialism, but I am pointing out that your thesis has no basis in history. While you might like to pretend differently, life in Sweden, England, Germany and the like is pretty much like here. It is certainly nothing like life in any Communist country.

 

[novus collectus]

Every so-called Communist state arrived by way of war, invasion or violent revolution. USSR, China, N. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Socialism didn't cause any sort of slow and steady change in any of those places.

Handy,
I have come to this thread late and will not comment on anything I have not read. However I do want to point out one country you did not mention: Mongolia. IIRC they voted themselves into a communist state. Of course it has nothing to do with what you wrote because IIRC it did not lead to totalitariamist dictatorship akin to the other communist countries.

So since this has almost (or nothing at all) to do with this thread, please ignore this fact I pointed out if you so choose.

 

[johnbt]

googled up at random -

"Mongolia won its independence in 1921 with Soviet backing. A Communist regime was installed in 1924. During the early 1990s, the ex-Communist Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP) gradually yielded its monopoly on power to the Democratic Union Coalition (DUC), which defeated the MPRP in a national election in 1996. Since then, parliamentary elections returned the MPRP overwhelmingly to power in 2000 and produced a coalition government in 2004."


FWIW, a few years ago I bought a great synthetic jacket at Hecht's...yep, made in Mongolia.

John

 

[novus collectus]

I shoulda' looked it up before I posted.

 

[LAK]

Handy

Every so-called Communist state arrived by way of war, invasion or violent revolution. USSR, China, N. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. Socialism didn't cause any sort of slow and steady change in any of those places.

As you say; so-called. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had some notable differences with the Peoples' Republic of China, and National Socialist Germany, as have all the others. Germany stands as a particular graphic example of how quickly the transition can be made. Despite arguements to the contrary, there can be no doubt the Nazi party rose to power on a national socialist ticket, and that was not in name only. This is reflected in the political ideology and propaganda that was used to persuade enough people to get them into power. Democratically. But it was a progressive agenda that turned a civilized country into something almost unrecognizable in the space of a decade.

Ultimately the difference between the ideology and practices of communists as opposed to socialists are somewhat moot points. They share far more than they differ, and the end result is going to be the same for the reason I have already posted above.

On the other hand, what are you thinking of when you say that modern socialism, as seen here and in Europe, has led to "oppression and control"? Name the country where taxation and socialized medicine, etc has created a nation that we would now call a totalitarian.

Not totalitarian, yet. But the provinces in Europa are getting there fast.

It's a non-starter. It has never happened. While you might take issue with individual laws and high tax rates, socialized European countries still enjoy nearly every freedom anyone on earth has ever had.

I'll have to say you are flat wrong.

Things were getting bad the last time I was was there in 1995; I still have family and friends there. It is getting seriously out of hand. Taxation is sky high; gasoline is about $6 a gallon of which over 70% is tax.

All EU provinces have a "Value Added Tax" - a sales tax. But it is not just a sales tax at retail level, it is collected at every level from production, distribution to retail on many goods and services. It is a minimum of 15% and is as high as 25% depending on which EU province.

In the U.K. it is 17.5%. On top of that there are; local community taxes, an income tax comparable to ours, the vehicle taxes etc. They have introduced special tolls collected for driving in parts of central London - a pilot program for greater things to come.

I could write a list of issues, but let's take what is a sure sign that things are getting bad; when you can be imprisoned for what you say or write. That is how bad it over there now.

I'm not defending socialism, but I am pointing out that your thesis has no basis in history. While you might like to pretend differently, life in Sweden, England, Germany and the like is pretty much like here. It is certainly nothing like life in any Communist country.

See above. I was in Germany for almost ten years; even in the late 70s one already had to "register" with the local police every time a change of residence took place. This did not matter whether one had a drivers license or not; it was a universal requirement for everyone. Abmelddung, Anmeldung. Deregister, register, and an Anmeldungschein - your papers. Or risk a hefty fine.

Sure things have been progressively changed here to where you are almost right; it is getting to be pretty much like it is here.

 

[Handy]

I can't believe you brought up the Nazis in reference to socialism. China uses the word "Democratic" in its full title - I suppose they're a good example of a democracy.

 

[LAK]

".... I am a National Socialist not when I want this or that from politics, rather when I consider all aspects of daily life. I must act in all things by putting the good of the whole above my personal good, by putting the good of the state above my personal good. But then I also have the guarantee that such a state will be able to protect my personal life. I am a National Socialist when I see everything in politics, culture or the economy from this standpoint. I therefore do not evaluate the theater from the standpoint of whether it is elegant or amusing, rather I ask: Is it good for my people, is it useful for them, does it strengthen the community? If so, the community in turn can benefit, support and strengthen me ...." - Joseph Goebbels, party speech in Berlin, January 9, 1928.

Yes, as painful as it might be for many, the Nazis rode socialist concepts from the getgo, and used them as a vehicle to absolute tyrannical power. As socialism, communism, marxism, maoism etc inevitably will be used everywhere else they are allowed to take root.

 

[Handy]

Well, I guess that begs the obvious question:

"Which party is closer to National Socialism?" Absurd.

 

[LAK]

They have both sat on their hands while a handicappped woman was put to death - by starvation and dehydration at that. Nothing new - except this one made national news for an extended period, so none of them can say with too much credibility that they didn't know about it. Oh, some individuals put in some opportune lipservice; but sit on their hands they did.

So I'd have to say it's a coin toss.