My outlook....

[Che a chara]

I would define myself as on the left.

But there is some 'policies' that are not 'leftist' that I am attracted to. Hope I don't get bashed for this, just my opinion, and of course I am open to change if there evidence that oppression and freedom of thought and the freedom to further and enhance one's self and motivations are not hindered, as I am in favour of total freedom that does not oppress or exploit against anyone.

I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape or if the mother's life or mental health are in danger I would support abortion.

What I don't really understand, and hope that I can learn more on here about this, is the the role of private property and is it possible to differentiate between owenership of private property and that of private enterprise ?

I am totally against exploitation and I am in favour of nationalisation of all private enterprises that are based soley for the use of profit and are anti-working class.

If a person has acquired his/her own private property such as their own house or car, especially if they have worked hard all their life, how does it seem fair for it to be confiscated ? If a person owns their own private property surely that would be an incentive for them to look after it properly.

Also, is there a difference between socialism and communism ? I know that socialism is the last step towards communism, but what are the main differences and can a socialist 'state' exist instead of a communist one ?

As I said, I am open to change on the above issues.

Cheers all :)

[Spawn of Stalin]

A common misconception is that "property" refers to all property, we reds do not want to take your car, your iPod, or your Levi's 501s, we support the right to have these things because we support the right to reap the fruits of your labour. Property simply means the factories, the tools, the machines, ect.

[gorillafuck]

I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape or if the mother's life or mental health are in danger I would support abortion.
Why?

[TheCagedLion]

[QUOTE]I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape or if the mother's life or mental health are in danger I would support abortion.

As far as I know, being anti-abortion will get you restricted.

But perhaps you could tell us more about why you are anti-abortion?

And while we're at it, you should try reading these threads to see if some of your own arguments get refuted:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortioni-t121261/index.html?t=121261&highlight=Abortion
http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-t112017/index.html?t=112017&highlight=Abortion


What I don't really understand, and hope that I can learn more on here about this, is the the role of private property and is it possible to differentiate between owenership of private property and that of private enterprise ?

I am totally against exploitation and I am in favour of nationalisation of all private enterprises that are based soley for the use of profit and are anti-working class.

If a person has acquired his/her own private property such as their own house or car, especially if they have worked hard all their life, how does it seem fair for it to be confiscated ? If a person owns their own private property surely that would be an incentive for them to look after it properly.

Also, is there a difference between socialism and communism ? I know that socialism is the last step towards communism, but what are the main differences and can a socialist 'state' exist instead of a communist one ?

As I said, I am open to change on the above issues.

Cheers all :)

As for this, read through the High School Commie's Guide (http://www.revleft.com/vb/high-school-commie-t22370/index.html) and use the forums search function, most of these have been brought up countless times.

[Tatarin]

I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape or if the mother's life or mental health are in danger I would support abortion.

The broad Left supports abortion because it is the woman that must control her own body, and by definition, the baby is a part of her body until it is born.

Abortion also happens because of exploitation and poverty. What can seem as an oportunity to a family can quickly turn into a situation where the baby will live through a life of poverty and misery. Maybe the mother can not even support the child at all. I'm guessing that in a communist society, there would be very little reason for abortion, and abortions may even end completely.

In contrast, capitalism will only make more poverty, thus there will be more abortions.


If a person has acquired his/her own private property such as their own house or car, especially if they have worked hard all their life, how does it seem fair for it to be confiscated?

This is one thing they will tell you, that we socialists only want to take everything. First, many of those who can afford a house or even a car by their own money are probably not so bad off. However, there is the situation where people take loans and have to mortage for all their lives. What happens then when the banks collapse? When capitalism is overthrown? Would they still own their house?

The goal of socialism is not to take away, but to make sure that everyone indeed do have a house and a car, and everything else they need. Also, with the commercial society gone, cars could even become common property.


If a person owns their own private property surely that would be an incentive for them to look after it properly.

Yes, there is personal property. Everyone needs a house, or at least an appartment to live in. The goal is to make everyone as rich, not as poor as possible.


Also, is there a difference between socialism and communism? I know that socialism is the last step towards communism, but what are the main differences and can a socialist 'state' exist instead of a communist one?

This is a mixed question and you'll probably get many answers. In capitalism a communist party is created, motivates the workers and make revolt against the state. After it comes socialism, a state where the property of the previous society is redistributed equally, in short, a period of reorganization of human society. When socialism is at work, whatever state is left will end and we would have communism.

Cuba is considered by many the closest thing to socialism, however there is of course much question on how much or how long it will last. Anarchists believe the straight way to communism is the only way, and that any states saying they are socialist are just as bad as the capitalist state. Crush capitalism, and communism will come right after. Well, they'll explain in more detail I guess.

Also, be sure to check out www.marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org) for many texts by all kinds of authors on the subject. You'll find everything from anarchism to maoism there.

[Che a chara]

Why?

I am unable to post links yet, but go to the second link that 'thecagedlion' posted and go to post number 64. :)

[Drace]

I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape or if the mother's life or mental health are in danger I would support abortion.We must understand the nature of morals. Doing so, we realize that morals have no connection to logic or the material world. They should only be applied to preserve the human race, for the sake of it.
As a nihilist I'd say it wouldn't matter at all if we all died right now but for the sake of survival, morals are needed.

And thus, morals should only exist to keep society in check and for us to be able to separate good from bad.
My view, in this sense is that morals are of no "divine" importance and only exist to keep humans sane.

Any moral that exists should benefit society. This seems to be the reason why they exist. Killing for example, is considered to be bad, but say what if it was Hitler you killed? This inconstancy in the way we judge what is right shows that rather we do not uphold morals for the sake of them being morals and thus something that is suppose to be followed unquestionably, but rather that what is good is what benefits our survival.

In the case of abortion, the argument is made on the moral basis that killing fetuses is wrong. But I would say that a woman's right to choose, and the burden she would have to carry with an unwanted child, is of much higher benefit to society than having an extra baby come into the world.
I don't view a fetus to be of an importance.


I am totally against exploitation and I am in favour of nationalisation of all private enterprises that are based soley for the use of profit and are anti-working class.Communism is not about nationalization of private enterprise. It is rather a stateless society in which the means of production are owned by the workers instead of the capitalists.



If a person has acquired his/her own private property such as their own house or car, especially if they have worked hard all their life, how does it seem fair for it to be confiscated ? If a person owns their own private property surely that would be an incentive for them to look after it properly.As mentioned, communism does not seek to take everyone's belongings and give it to everyone equally. It only seeks to remove value producing property such as factories, farms, etc from the hands of capitalists.

[Che a chara]

A common misconception is that "property" refers to all property, we reds do not want to take your car, your iPod, or your Levi's 501s, we support the right to have these things because we support the right to reap the fruits of your labour. Property simply means the factories, the tools, the machines, ect.

This is what i thought that the means of production and that of wage labour would be abolished and confiscated. This is what i support.

But under communism ALL property becomes owned by the state, which i feel may infringe on people's personal freedoms to own what they like, as long as it doesn't oppress or offend, after all, they have used their labour to buy, build and protect it. Many of those who once supported and lived under communism and later became it's foe because if the state deying them their own personal freedom. Is it fair ?

[Drace]

Did you read my post?
Communism is stateless.

Even in a currupt "socialist" state like the USSR, people had their personal belongings.
The government just owned the means of production and all social and political institutions.

[Che a chara]

The broad Left supports abortion because it is the woman that must control her own body, and by definition, the baby is a part of her body until it is born.

Abortion also happens because of exploitation and poverty. What can seem as an oportunity to a family can quickly turn into a situation where the baby will live through a life of poverty and misery. Maybe the mother can not even support the child at all. I'm guessing that in a communist society, there would be very little reason for abortion, and abortions may even end completely.

In contrast, capitalism will only make more poverty, thus there will be more abortions.

True. This would be another issue. The use of adoption or giving the child to maybe another family member could help out in such cases.

I wont get into this too much here, maybe keep it for the abortion thread mentioned/linked above. :)



This is one thing they will tell you, that we socialists only want to take everything. First, many of those who can afford a house or even a car by their own money are probably not so bad off. However, there is the situation where people take loans and have to mortage for all their lives. What happens then when the banks collapse? When capitalism is overthrown? Would they still own their house?

The goal of socialism is not to take away, but to make sure that everyone indeed do have a house and a car, and everything else they need. Also, with the commercial society gone, cars could even become common property.


Yes, there is personal property. Everyone needs a house, or at least an appartment to live in. The goal is to make everyone as rich, not as poor as possible.

Of course this is whay i am anti-capitalist. Mortgages and loans are a criminal enterprise and need outlawed. But why should those who worked hard suffer by the state owning what they worked and paid for ?

I get what you're saying about banks collapsing and those who wouldn't be able to afford the payments for their property. But in situations like this, I would prefer the 'owners' to continue living in the property while it is in the state's hands, until they can afford to pay back by working for it. Is there any oppression or exploitation in that ? It feels better when you have worked for something. The fruits of labour and all that.

I also like the idea of everyone having a house to live, as poverty and homelessness is rife and terrible, and this would happen under socialism. Everybody should have warmth, food and shelter.


This is a mixed question and you'll probably get many answers. In capitalism a communist party is created, motivates the workers and make revolt against the state. After it comes socialism, a state where the property of the previous society is redistributed equally, in short, a period of reorganization of human society. When socialism is at work, whatever state is left will end and we would have communism.

Cuba is considered by many the closest thing to socialism, however there is of course much question on how much or how long it will last. Anarchists believe the straight way to communism is the only way, and that any states saying they are socialist are just as bad as the capitalist state. Crush capitalism, and communism will come right after. Well, they'll explain in more detail I guess.

Also, be sure to check out .......... for many texts by all kinds of authors on the subject. You'll find everything from anarchism to maoism there.

cheers

[Che a chara]

Did you read my post?
Communism is stateless.

Even in a currupt "socialist" state like the USSR, people had their personal belongings.
The government just owned the means of production and all social and political institutions.

Righto, only getting round to reading it now..... :)

[Che a chara]

Communism is not about nationalization of private enterprise. It is rather a stateless society in which the means of production are owned by the workers instead of the capitalists.

As mentioned, communism does not seek to take everyone's belongings and give it to everyone equally. It only seeks to remove value producing property such as factories, farms, etc from the hands of capitalists.

Well as stated it must be a misconception.


Even in a currupt "socialist" state like the USSR, people had their personal belongings.
The government just owned the means of production and all social and political institutions.

:)

So it would only be the ruling/capitalist class that would have their ill-gotten gains confisctaed ?

[IllicitPopsicle]

Well, if there was no state, there would be no need for money/currency... so yes.

[Tatarin]

But under communism ALL property becomes owned by the state, which i feel may infringe on people's personal freedoms to own what they like, as long as it doesn't oppress or offend, after all, they have used their labour to buy, build and protect it.

No, all property will belong to the people, and the people consists of individuals like you and me. We all have personal property, like toothbrushes. But we also must have somewhere to live and something to eat. And people have motivation to do something. A state is only as good as long as it oversees the peoples demands. In short, everyone will own everything, but not in the sense that anyone can just bust into your house and take whatever that person wants.

Once again the ruling class media will want you to think that socialism will drag everyone down the drain and in the mud, to make everyone as poor as possible, which is untrue. In fact, the opposite is true.

And for the argument, how do you really own your house? If the current capitalist government want it, they will just enter and evict you. They'll dig up something that will link you to bin Laden, and that's that. No matter how much you worked, or paid or built.


Many of those who once supported and lived under communism and later became it's foe because if the state deying them their own personal freedom. Is it fair?

That is not the complete truth, and you need to dig in deeper in how those societies were. Interestingly enough, author Michael Parenti found out that most of the squabbles people had with the state was the ineffectivity of many things. No cleaning or support for structures, long lines, and such. Yes, the KGB on your back wasn't nice also, but all in all, society somehow worked.

These defectors are also the same people who celebrated the complete disintegration of the Soviet state and the complete destruction of the social nets that were functioning, such things as a home for everyone, food for the day, and work. Many of the ordinary people even want a return of that society.

But we could just as well look on the society we are living in today. How much freedom do we really have? When was the last time a communist got face time on TV? Or money for a show? What freedom is there if we can never vote on if we should invade Iraq? Or increase surveillance? Or who gets to own the factory? No, those are somehow outside the democratic process many countries claim to have. Those are suddenly classified as "national security".


But why should those who worked hard suffer by the state owning what they worked and paid for?

Well, what they paid for or didn't pay for would be pretty irrelevant, as a completely new society would emerge. However, people would most likely still live in where they live as socialism reorganizes society.

I think another line of thought, not to be sidelined, is the state of the country in the event of a revolution. Revolutions often happen when the divide between the rich and poor are extremely large, and in where the poor have absolutely nothing and the rich extremely much. In other words, when the revolution do happen, you will either be living in a very big house and have many cars, or you will have nothing and live on the streets. Historically, this is the situation in Russia and China, and India and Nepal in modern terms.


But in situations like this, I would prefer the 'owners' to continue living in the property while it is in the state's hands, until they can afford to pay back by working for it.

The meaning is not to punish people, but to better society. We don't want to evict everyone living in a house, we want everyone to have a house. As above, I think that this situation would be highly unlikely because society would have gone to such lenghts were such hard working people simply wouldn't exist. At least, they wouldn't be living in houses.

[MarxSchmarx]

I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape or if the mother's life or mental health are in danger I would support abortion.We will most certainly be continuing this discussion in OI, but using your logic, why should a child die for the sins of their father?

[Che a chara]

We will most certainly be continuing this discussion in OI, but using your logic, why should a child die for the sins of their father?

If you are on about a rape pregnancy, well obviously it would be the expectant mother's choice in situations like this. If it's what the mother wants and is best all round, then of course an abortion should be an option. The mother may not be able to bond with the child because of how 'it' was conceived.

If for mental health reasons or the expectant mother's life is at risk, then common sense surely prevails, except in the odd situation where by the mother against doctor's orders will continue and give birth to the child.