Communism is not freedom.

[saad]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away. The notion that individual property is what breeds greed is not true; it breeds selfishness. Selfishness, not self serving, is the highest priority a man should have. Under communism property is not private.

Communism advocates not ambitions, but fulfilling needs. Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing. We earn it--Communism is an antithesis for innovation, and only calls for a fixed point. But besides all that:

History and Economics have shown that, morally, Communism isn't a superior system; in fact, Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing--and to say that is had--shows it's failure; to say that it is, shows they aren't actually functioning Marx said it would.

Any objections?

[Red Saxon]

I'm saad for the you :crying:

[scarletghoul]

freedom for the individual can only truly be attained through collective emancipation, bro.

anyways im not sure i like your tone, mr.. this forum is called 'learning', not 'being a selfrighteous prick'. fuck off, read some marx, read some history from non-bourgeois sources, then come backkkkkkk

[Ravachol]

First of al, this belongs in OI but meh.


There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success;


You are making the fatal mistake of confusing private possesion with private property. I, for one, do not argue in favor of abolishing the former. I'm in favor of abolishing private ownership of the means of production.

Secondly, why do you think nobody can have his 'own' successes under communism? Where did you get that idea?



Communism takes this away. The notion that individual property is what breeds greed is not true; it breeds selfishness. Selfishness, not self serving, is the highest priority a man should have. Under communism property is not private.


And it shouldn't be. Possesion, however, can be private. Also, I do not see why selfishness should be the highest priority a man should have. If cooperation weren't necessary for human development, corporations would not exist.



Communism advocates not ambitions, but fulfilling needs. Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing. We earn it--Communism is an antithesis for innovation, and only calls for a fixed point.


We earn it indeed, those who provide all material wealth on the planet, being the working class. Thanks for pointing out wealth is earned by those who produce it :rolleyes:



History and Economics have shown that, morally, Communism isn't a superior system; in fact, Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing--and to say that is had--shows it's failure; to say that it is, shows they aren't actually functioning Marx said it would.


This scentence doesn't even make any sense. Neither gramatically nor logically. Rephrase it please.

[Drace]

What makes an individual is his individual aspects - his ideas, his personality, his face, his history, and etc. What relationship does this have private property?

You give accomplishments, success, and economic freedom as the great attributes of capitalism. Here, you are dramatizing the non-existent. Your argument is no more than an idealist, and non-materialistic view.
What man has praised his ability to compare his success with others? It is rather the material wealth, not the abstract concept of being superior, that let us enjoy ourselves.
Should the standards of living then be calculated not by what the system offers but rather simply the economic freedom of a country? There is no correlation between the two.
You talk as if that capitalism creates an environment of self thought - free of economic obstacles and burdens.

Communism takes away the economic complexities and social and financial struggles to create a society where its respective individuals are able to measure success not by wealth, but social standards.

As Marx put it,
"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic."

Communism is no threat to human self interest. Self interest though can take in the form of helping others and acting cooperatively. Humans may be selfish, but why is wealth given as the only priority of humans? What genetical conception explains the search of wealth as human nature? Humans rather, seek and fulfill whatever they value. This includes human lives, equality, family, friends, happiness, sex, and all other cooperative based concepts.
Humans being self interested does not imply a search for bettering yourself and obtaining as much wealth possible. By examining what humans find valuable, self interest rather becomes a means to a cooperative based society.

Thus self interest becomes a term to mean nothing more than not allowing yourself to be sold a slave because it will help another. Everything you do, from killing everyone on Earth to being Robin Hood and giving to the poor is done in "self interest".

But to deem humans as inherently evil has no logical, biological, philosophical, or scientific evidence. How do you explain the emotions of guilt with this simplistic view?
Evil, bad, or good, itself are very subjective terms.
Hitler himself had good intentions. While his ideas may be rejected as evil to others, to him, killing every Jew in the world was a bettering of humanity.
This example itself shows how different values when sparked with self interest create a range of actions.

Environmental conditions, then, became a role in shaping views and values. Racism for example, is a concept which is deeply affected by social upbringings. Racists will find it in their interest to make racist jokes and comments, yet do non-racists not exist? Those who value instead equality and the human condition?

How do you view needs as something that of which needs to be earned? Do we not need material things like food and shelter, and should we not be guaranteed concepts such as freedom of speech and religion? Of course, food and a home are not going to be handed to you if you refuse to work. And likewise, you will have no freedom of speech if you murdered 20.
But to view this as more than just this simple relationship - you work, you get paid - is idealist shit.

History and economics have not proven anything. If anything, the intervention of Haiti, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Ecuador, Zaire, Iran, Iraq, El Salvador, Chile, Cuba, South Africa, Congo, Guatemala, The Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, Bulgaria, Greece (twice), Albania, Yugoslavia, Dominican Republic, Spain, Panama, Bosnia along with the poverty, ecological destruction, inequality, and consumerism are all against you.

Economics seems to be not the study of how to deal with limited resources, but to explain the functioning of capitalism and establish a hard set of economic "laws". And of course, anyone that says something in opposition is told to go learn economics because it does not correlate with their learned "economics".

[Patchd]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away. The notion that individual property is what breeds greed is not true; it breeds selfishness. Selfishness, not self serving, is the highest priority a man should have. Under communism property is not private.

Wrong, I'm a Communist because I am selfish. Why then do I see communism as being in my interests? Because I am working class, my labour gets exploited by my boss simply because he 'owns' the property in which I work. Not only that, but in order to maintain their socio-economic system, through the state, they repress individual freedoms, or are complicit in it's repression by members of society (from any class), LGBTQ oppression female (concrete family structures/gender stereotypes) and child subjugation (schools/academia etc.) and so forth.

I also think you seem to be confusing Private property, with personal property. When Marxists and class struggle Anarchists talk of the former, they refer to the means of production, distribution and services, workplaces, machinery etc... Personal property refers to just that, TVs, cars, games and so forth. Under communism, and taking into consideration the extent to which society has technologically advanced and the parasitic nature of 'property rights', I would expect to see ever rapid development of technology. This, along with the abolition of money, and mandatory labour (through the increasing introduction of machinery into our workplace), will also abolish any view that resources need to be kept to yourself and yourself only, as many items would be in greater abundance.

Why bother about who owns your television when you can easily get one for free?


Communism advocates not ambitions, but fulfilling needs. Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing. We earn it--Communism is an antithesis for innovation, and only calls for a fixed point. But besides all that:No, capitalism doesn't advocate ambition, capitalism represses it. The only 'ambition' capitalism generates, is the ambition to be able to own private property so that you may lead a comfortable life, while the majority of society will have to labour for a living. Basically, an ambition to exploit others, which leads onto your point about 'morality'.

You talk of earning, but tell me, how do many bosses earn their money? Simply working by themselves? Producing everything they sell? Distributing everything they produce? People do not earn anything under capitalism except the ability to continue surviving just so they can earn more capital for the boss class.


History and Economics have shown that, morally, Communism isn't a superior system; in fact, Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing--and to say that is had--shows it's failure; to say that it is, shows they aren't actually functioning Marx said it would.

Any objections?Morally? Who the fuck are you, Jesus? Marx's 'original system' of communism has never been tried, and I'm not a Marxist. In fact, do you even know what the word communism means? An egalitarian, classless, and therefore stateless society ... where have you seen this? Are you telling me that capitalism is succeeding morally? In what way is it moral for the US to pay farmers to burn more crop than the whole of the European Union produces, just so they don't 'flood the market' as a result, keeping in mind that millions go without food every day.

In what way is it moral to give to a children's charity, whilst at the same time hiring Indonesian children to work for a pittance pay, usually under absolutely crap conditions? In what way is it moral to preach peace and order within society, yet still launch invasions, and killing thousands in the process, into other regions of the world in order to secure further markets or capital interests?

[RHIZOMES]

There are a lot of individuals achievements you can accomplish without the existence of private property. In fact it opens up room for more people to make even more achievements, since they aren't constricted by their economic position in life.

[Klaatu]

"There can exist no true freedom under Communism"

You don't know what you're talking about.

Communism is, by definition, a voluntary thing. For example, 1960s hippies living in a commune ("commune-ism") is a self-fulfilling, self-rewarding idea of human equality. So is a monastery, where monks live in a "commune-ity." The root is the term "common."

What you have described is "Authoritarianism," and is propagated by force. By contrast, Communism is of the free will of the individual. This is exactly the opposite of your given description.

Communism is a good thing, a virtuous thing. We should all strive to give back to our community ("commune")

[mikelepore]

Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing. We earn it--

That statement almost sounds reasonable for about three seconds. Then we remember that capitalism is a system where the people who do the work that produces all the wealth receive the lowest incomes and own the fewest assets, while those who take the lion's share of the wealth produce nothing at all.

[Le Libérer]

Moved thread from Learning to OI.

[The Red Next Door]

Capitalism is not freedom because the big guys always tried to stop the little guys from winning and you have unfair trade and the bosses earn off the hard work of others. Also people are always pressure to spend the latest item, because if you do not have the latest shit then you are a loser.

[Chambered Word]

OP post sounds like something parrotted from Ayn Rand.

[graffic]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away. The notion that individual property is what breeds greed is not true; it breeds selfishness. Selfishness, not self serving, is the highest priority a man should have. Under communism property is not private.


That is the lie that capitalism feeds you, in my opinion. A real man does not need to hide behind possessions and material wealth. All the private property and private wealth accumulated by individuals, behind all of that wealth I think is a deeply troubled and insecure human being. In the words of Engels; "Man's fear of himself is expressed through private property".

Self-realization can only come from each other, because at the end of the day, I think we all have the same wants and needs. Capitalism, selfishness and greed blind man from absolute truth.

A real man does not need to compare himself to others and feel pressured and anxious to "want more" because capitalism creates that illusion of human hierarchy that shouldn't exist in the first place. It is a vicious cycle relying on people wanting more than they need. The only people that benefit are the minority of capitalists whilst the majority suffer. Why would anyone want to live like that?

[rednordman]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away? Why is it so dam important for you people to compare yourselves to others? Please answer me this...

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalism is not freedom because the big guys always tried to stop the little guys from winning and you have unfair trade and the bosses earn off the hard work of others.

I think the way it works is that under Capitalism most (by far the most) people are less free than they would be under Communism--BUT a few the Bourgeoise, are more free under Capitalism than they would be under Communism.

Communism is the great equalizer.

[Dr Mindbender]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away. The notion that individual property is what breeds greed is not true; it breeds selfishness. Selfishness, not self serving, is the highest priority a man should have. Under communism property is not private.

Communism advocates not ambitions, but fulfilling needs. Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing. We earn it--Communism is an antithesis for innovation, and only calls for a fixed point. But besides all that:

History and Economics have shown that, morally, Communism isn't a superior system; in fact, Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing--and to say that is had--shows it's failure; to say that it is, shows they aren't actually functioning Marx said it would.

Any objections?

Cat, play him off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clfAq1xSevc&feature=related

[Muzk]

The troll hasn't responded yet, ban the liberal

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away. The notion that individual property is what breeds greed is not true; it breeds selfishness. Selfishness, not self serving, is the highest priority a man should have. Under communism property is not private.

Communism does not remove personal property of the type you're describing - nor does communism remove accomplishments and ideas. Private property refers to property which belongs to companies and capitalists, it's not the same as an individual's home or belongings.


Communism advocates not ambitions, but fulfilling needs. Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing. We earn it--Communism is an antithesis for innovation, and only calls for a fixed point.

Spoken like a true conservative. :rolleyes: The primary goal of communism is fulfilling needs, yes, and do you know why? It's because those whose needs aren't satisfied cannot fulfil ambitions. Are you saying children who are born without clean drinking water do not deserve it, but Western children do? Are you saying that Americans have all earned their right to have enough food, but farmers in Ethiopia deserve to starve when their crops fail? Communism is a stable starting point - it guarantees equal rights and opportunities to all in the faith that once the basics are there, society will then begin to flourish.


But besides all that:

History and Economics have shown that, morally, Communism isn't a superior system; in fact, Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing--and to say that is had--shows it's failure; to say that it is, shows they aren't actually functioning Marx said it would.

I can't reply to this until you give concrete examples to back up your point, but I do have objections to every single thing you've said.

[Muzk]

History and Economics have shown that, morally, Communism isn't a superior system; in fact, Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing--and to say that is had--shows it's failure; to say that it is, shows they aren't actually functioning Marx said it would.



You all don't want to speak out what he means? He means the former soviet union, and that it fell because the system (communism) wasn't perfect, and it didn't work as Marx said it would, the usual "looks good on paper" bullshit, he probably hasn't read Marx either, simply took this from some newspaper or fox news or whatever...


Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing
Stop quoting him if you havn't read a shit.

Was the CCCP even Marx' "original system" and was Marx even the inventor?

This is just the same shit I hear at school all day, that Marx invented all this :confused:

[Klaatu]

"...he probably hasn't read Marx either, simply took this from some newspaper or fox news or whatever..."

That may be it! (Fox News): Could it be that the real identity of guy who started this thread is Rupert Murdoch? :lol:

[Mindtoaster]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual?

"So, what am I? Tied in every way to places, sufferings, ancestors, friends, loves, events, languages, memories, to all kinds of things that obviously are not me. Everything that attaches me to the world, all the links that constitute me, all the forces that compose me don't form an identity, a thing displayable on cue, but a singular, shared, living existence from which emerges -at certain times and places- that being which says "I". "

A little gem from The Coming Insurrection

[Comrade Anarchist]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away. The notion that individual property is what breeds greed is not true; it breeds selfishness. Selfishness, not self serving, is the highest priority a man should have. Under communism property is not private.

Communism advocates not ambitions, but fulfilling needs. Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing. We earn it--Communism is an antithesis for innovation, and only calls for a fixed point.?

Mostly correct. The collective is oppressive and the individual should be the top priortiy in a revolution. The thing is though that property, as in land, should not be controlled by one person b/c earth belongs to no one and since there are almost 7 billion of us to seperate it evenly would be stupid. Individual property does not create greed b/c humans are inherently greedy, so private property is a symptom of that greed not a cause of it. What an individual thinks up is his and what he creates is his and if he chooses to share it with the collective then it will be shared. Yes communism does quell ambition and does infringe upon the rights of the individual which is why we must integrate egoism, the most individualistic form of anarchism, and communism, liberation of the collective, so that the individual wont be sacrificed for "the greater good" bullshit.

[Comrade B]

Interesting how you seem to think freedom has nothing to do with the freedom to do anything but to own things.

It is clear from your post that you have lived a life where you never had to worry at all about your basic needs not being fulfilled.
My definition of freedom is people having the ability to make decisions for themselves. When you have to work for the whole day just to make barely enough to keep your family fed and to pay your rent, there really is little time to make decisions for yourself.

[Chambered Word]

Has anyone but me noticed these right-libertarian nutcase types have no other 'ambitions' and 'goals' than to get insanely rich?

[Klaatu]

Has anyone but me noticed these right-libertarian nutcase types have no other 'ambitions' and 'goals' than to get insanely rich?

And they are unhappy people. It shows. Why? Because they are always *****ing about something. They're not happy people.

Money does not buy happiness. Material things will never make one truly happy in life.

[Skooma Addict]

lmao, this is great.



Has anyone but me noticed these right-libertarian nutcase types have no other 'ambitions' and 'goals' than to get insanely rich?Well like everyone else on this forum, you don't have a coherent definition of a right libertarian. I do not know a single libertarian whose only goal is to get rich.


And they are unhappy people. It shows. Why? Because they are always *****ing about something. They're not happy people. So I guess socialists are unhappy people too then.

[Klaatu]

"So I guess socialists are unhappy people too then."

Problem is, Socialists have so little power, because we have so little money. We don't lie, cheat and steal
our way to the top, just to be at the top of the heap, to "Keep up with the Joneses," the way capitalists
and Libertarians' philosophies dictate. Stop and smell the roses sometime, without the profit motive.
Enjoy the important things in life, and don't let the love of money dominate your life. You will be happier.

That is what I meant.

[Kayser_Soso]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away. The notion that individual property is what breeds greed is not true; it breeds selfishness. Selfishness, not self serving, is the highest priority a man should have. Under communism property is not private.

FAIL.



Communism advocates not ambitions, but fulfilling needs. Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing. We earn it--Communism is an antithesis for innovation, and only calls for a fixed point. But besides all that:

Really hard to fulfill those ambitions when you can't eat.



History and Economics have shown that, morally, Communism isn't a superior system; in fact, Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing--and to say that is had--shows it's failure; to say that it is, shows they aren't actually functioning Marx said it would.

Any objections?

If something doesn't work the first time, you should just quit. For example, you fail at living.

[Drace]

Capitalists are idealists.
They believe all can benefit from the market dominated by a few individuals. And yet they make the cries of communism being corrupted by greed.

Only the absence class consciousness can explain such ignorance, and it only does so by means of more ignorance.

[Jimmie Higgins]

...what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself,

Then why is there not a single idea in your post that hasn't been owned before by 100 indistinguishable pro-capitalist hacks?




....oooooh SNAP!


This guy isn't replying so we can move this to chit-chat now and turn it into an capitalist-argument dis competition.:lol:

[Chambered Word]

lmao, this is great.

Well like everyone else on this forum, you don't have a coherent definition of a right libertarian. I do not know a single libertarian whose only goal is to get rich.

Here we go, 'you don't know what a right-libertarian is', blah blah. We're well aware of who you lot are.

They are always treating 'happiness' as a level of how much material worth you have gained. So fucking what if socialism means you may not have the 'opportunity' to have more money than the next man? They don't appear to see it this way: opportunity is the opportunity to exploit others and have a free reign on how much wealth you accumulate for your personal use. It's always about being an individual in terms of your worth in money, not how much you actually do for yourself and others, or how you think about life, or how much you improve the world, or how many places you travel to, or how many interesting experiences you have in life, or how many books you read, or how many topics you learn about, etc, etc, ad nauseaum. It is essentially a matter of how many resources and power you command. Most normal people seem content with having enough to eat and enjoy life, but maybe that's just me. :rolleyes:


So I guess socialists are unhappy people too then.

Some of us are really miserable bastards, but not in the same vein as being pissed off because we aren't rich enough. I don't believe we're as shallow as right-libertarians.

[ComradeMan]

Where there is a state there is no liberty.

The problem is not with the -isms although capitalism is definitively statist, but with the states themselves. When there have been popular revolutions in the past all that they have done, with varying degrees of success and failure, is take over the state and then get sucked into the state mechanisms of administration and production. The Cuban revolution, in my opinion, is the nearest thing to a successful socialist revolution and yet still in Cuba do we have the oppression of the state- albeit Castro's state.

[Klaatu]

Where there is a state there is no liberty.


What then, is your definition of "liberty?"

[Uppercut]

I think the USSR had some problem, but hey, it's better than capitalism. At least you were guaranteed a job. And you could still criticize your local party leaders. You could even recall them if needed.

I suggest you actually READ up on the USSR from an unbiased source. It wasn't hell in any way, shape, or form.

[trivas7]

Communism is a dream of secular utopians; in truth the concept embodies not a whiff of actual content.

[Nolan]

Communism is a dream of secular utopians; in truth the concept embodies not a whiff of actual content.

Ban this fucking troll.

[trivas7]

Capitalists are idealists.
They believe all can benefit from the market dominated by a few individuals. And yet they make the cries of communism being corrupted by greed.

You are unclear on the concept if you believe that monopolies are intrinsic to capitalism.

[Nolan]

You are unclear on the concept if you believe that monopolies are intrinsic to capitalism.

Look at history. Look at the Gilded Age. The less regulation you have in capitalism, the more likely it is that monopolies will form. Not that American-style Corporatism is really any better.

[dubaba]

Freedom isnt about material goods man, thats just sad.

[ComradeMan]

What then, is your definition of "liberty?"


Where there is no state....! ;)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

In principle-the right to act within your own will as long as it does not harm another person directly or indirectly.

With this liberty however comes the responsibility to take full responsibility for one's own actions too.... Liberty is not a free-for-all.

It is a pretty all encompassing concept I know and not easy to explain briefly either. But I think that the State as is only provides the liberty to be free within the State however that is in itself a serious curtailment of liberty. No state, more liberty.... if you see what I mean? I don't think absolute liberty is attainable, but more liberty yes.

[Drace]

You are unclear on the concept if you believe that monopolies are intrinsic to capitalism. Yeah, lets abolish the one thing that guarantees the working class a livable wage, worker's rights, and the 8 hour day to allow the system that has created the antagonists of it.
Capitalism is a hierarchical system of which the nature of is very little different from feudalism and the slaveowner/slave relationship. That is, the rule of the oppressors to the oppressed.
How can a system that promotes individual ownership of the neutral land, and thus the means of arms to defend such property claim to be beneficial to the property-less?

[Klaatu]

Liberty is not a free-for-all.

I certainly agree with that. And if all people were honest, hard-working citizens, we would have
freedom and liberty and dispense with authority altogether. The problem is that, since there are
multitudes of antisocial, greedy, dishonest, cheating people out there (for example capitalists)
Thus the Libertarian Dream of freedom can never be. At least not a blood-sucking capitalist one.

I read "Restoring the American Dream" by Robert Ringer, back in the early 80s. I used to believe
in those Libertarian ideals, until I came to realize just how impossible it would be to implement
and run such a Utopian society which Ringer had imagined. With all due respect to him, and the
founders of Libertarianism, I am a permanent drop-out from that cause. It doesn't work for me.
But then I do not believe in authoritarian (Soviet type) government, nor totalitarian (Nazi type)
government either.

Too bad there does not (yet) exist some happy medium (?) Where can we look for this?

[Klaatu]

Yeah, lets abolish the one thing that guarantees the working class a livable wage, worker's rights, and the 8 hour day to allow the system that has created the antagonists of it.
Capitalism is a hierarchical system of which the nature of is very little different from feudalism and the slaveowner/slave relationship. That is, the rule of the oppressors to the oppressed.
How can a system that promotes individual ownership of the neutral land, and thus the means of arms to defend such property claim to be beneficial to the property-less?

If it were entirely up to the wealthy, elitist capitalist, there would be no 8 hour workday, no livable wage, no workers rights (it was the profiteering capitalist who owned the 19th century slave, not the state)

The only salvation is the Unions. The union brought us workers rights, etc, not the bloodsucking capitalist. Capitalists are "extracters" not givers.

Rent this movie: "On the Waterfront" with Marlon Brando. A great example of organized-crime capitalism.

[Scary Monster]

I certainly agree with that. And if all people were honest, hard-working citizens, we would have
freedom and liberty and dispense with authority altogether. The problem is that, since there are
multitudes of antisocial, greedy, dishonest, cheating people out there (for example capitalists)
Thus the Libertarian Dream of freedom can never be. At least not a blood-sucking capitalist one.

I read "Restoring the American Dream" by Robert Ringer, back in the early 80s. I used to believe
in those Libertarian ideals, until I came to realize just how impossible it would be to implement
and run such a Utopian society which Ringer had imagined. With all due respect to him, and the
founders of Libertarianism, I am a permanent drop-out from that cause. It doesn't work for me.
But then I do not believe in authoritarian (Soviet type) government, nor totalitarian (Nazi type)
government either.

Too bad there does not (yet) exist some happy medium (?) Where can we look for this?

I think you seem to be forgetting that communism has absolutely nothing to do with authoritarianism. The single most important thing everyone forgets is that its all about the workers having a say in everything, able to directly govern themselves. Mass-murdering thugs having unquestioned power calling themselves communist does not make them communist.

[Tatarin]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual?

Ah, but you do accept that there is some freedom under Communism?


His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away.

How does Communism take this away? Do Communism send a gang of people that physically takes away the person's sofas, television, ideas, accomplishments and his successes compared to others?


Under communism property is not private.

Under communism your property will certainly not be private.


Communism advocates not ambitions, but fulfilling needs.

And this is bad, because....?


Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing.

Now that's the spirit! Those damn black and red and yellow races deserve nothing! Let them all die in their impoverished lands! Why should we give them anything!? They've done that to their own lands, and so they deserve the poverty and misery they live in now! How could I miss this, why - I must be an ignorant teen-aged communist!


We earn it--Communism is an antithesis for innovation, and only calls for a fixed point.

Why of course! That is why everything on YouTube and Archive.org is stolen property and couldn't possibly be made to be seen by millions of people freely!


History and Economics have shown that, morally, Communism isn't a superior system; in fact, Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing--and to say that is had--shows it's failure; to say that it is, shows they aren't actually functioning Marx said it would.

Oh my! How could we all miss this?! This guy is really a genius!!!

[Drace]

If it were entirely up to the wealthy, elitist capitalist, there would be no 8 hour workday, no livable wage, no workers rights (it was the profiteering capitalist who owned the 19th century slave, not the state)

The only salvation is the Unions. The union brought us workers rights, etc, not the bloodsucking capitalist. Capitalists are "extracters" not givers.

That's what I acknowledged. Wouldn't an example of lassiez-faire capitalism be early 19th-20th century America and England?

[commyrebel]

There can exist no true freedom under Communism; what do you think makes an individual? His own property--not just his sofas, his televisions--but his ideas for himself, accomplishments, his success compared to others' success; Communism takes this away. The notion that individual property is what breeds greed is not true; it breeds selfishness. Selfishness, not self serving, is the highest priority a man should have. Under communism property is not private.

Communism advocates not ambitions, but fulfilling needs. Communism speaks of satisfying those needs, or "rights," that we all so deserve... we deserve nothing. We earn it--Communism is an antithesis for innovation, and only calls for a fixed point. But besides all that:

History and Economics have shown that, morally, Communism isn't a superior system; in fact, Marx's original system of Communism is no longer existing--and to say that is had--shows it's failure; to say that it is, shows they aren't actually functioning Marx said it would.

Any objections?
I would like to say read our doctrines and writing before you start assuming who we are and how communism works
like if you have read the communist manifesto you would know when they say demolish privet property doesn't mean you have property that you control its the dismantle of bourgeois property ie if you don't know what that word means you should go to school and actual read any history book that includes the french revolution but what he means is the property owned by people who own business and not there house property but the business property

[Nolan]

That's what I acknowledged. Wouldn't an example of lassiez-faire capitalism be early 19th-20th century America and England?

Largely, yes.

It was called the Gilded Age.

[Klaatu]

I think you seem to be forgetting that communism has absolutely nothing to do with authoritarianism. The single most important thing everyone forgets is that its all about the workers having a say in everything, able to directly govern themselves. Mass-murdering thugs having unquestioned power calling themselves communist does not make them communist.

I absolutely agree. Actually I posted something on that fact a while ago.

I did not mean for you to draw that conclusion, comrade

[Klaatu]

That's what I acknowledged. Wouldn't an example of lassiez-faire capitalism be early 19th-20th century America and England?

I don't know if lassiez-faire capitalism ever has existed. That is because if it did, it would be very quickly overrun by gangsters. Until every person on this planet evolves into a saint, with fool-proof good morals, lassiez-faire capitalism cannot work for the masses. It can only work for the very few gangsters who hold power.

[Kayser_Soso]

I don't know if lassiez-faire capitalism ever has existed. That is because if it did, it would be very quickly overrun by gangsters. Until every person on this planet evolves into a saint, with fool-proof good morals, lassiez-faire capitalism cannot work for the masses. It can only work for the very few gangsters who hold power.


If lassaiz-faire actually existed as libertarians want it, the whole system would fall apart and we'd probably be living in an almost feudal existence. The capitalists require the state to enforce their property rights, and laws governing contracts and other business transactions.

[Delegado J]

If lassaiz-faire actually existed as libertarians want it, the whole system would fall apart and we'd probably be living in an almost feudal existence. The capitalists require the state to enforce their property rights, and laws governing contracts and other business transactions.

I agree. I think it's humorous how Ron Paul and Milton Freidman relate free markets with liberty. Competition creates and encourages monopolies, contrary to their beliefs. And when you think about it, the whole point of competition is to get rid of your competators so you forms monopolies and oligarchies.

Competition is a redundent and hypocritical philosophy.

[RGacky3]

No no no no no Delegado J, you don't get it, the free market is absolutely different from any other sort of competition, no one ever wins ... ever, its always always a statemate and the people win.

[Delegado J]

^^oh, silly me! i forgot! free markets are the only way to go! outsourcing+walmart= happy

[Klaatu]

If lassaiz-faire actually existed as libertarians want it, the whole system would fall apart and we'd probably be living in an almost feudal existence. The capitalists require the state to enforce their property rights, and laws governing contracts and other business transactions.

And that is exactly why the Libertarian idea is so wrong-headed. These problems have all happened before. Consider feudal medieval Europe. Capitalism sure did work for the aristocrat, but did little or nothing for the poor peasant. In fact, the crushing taxes which were imposed
certainly hurt the poor, did not help them. This is one reason the French Revolution happened; people simply got fed up with the undue
opulence of the few.

Libertarians should carefully study world history, and not fantasize merits of an unworkable system (laissez-faire capitalism)

[Nolan]

And that is exactly why the Libertarian idea is so wrong-headed. These problems have all happened before. Consider feudal medieval Europe. Capitalism sure did work for the aristocrat, but did little or nothing for the poor peasant. In fact, the crushing taxes which were imposed
certainly hurt the poor, did not help them. This is one reason the French Revolution happened; people simply got fed up with the undue
opulence of the few.

Libertarians should carefully study world history, and not fantasize merits of an unworkable system (laissez-faire capitalism)

Um. Feudalism is not Capitalism. Sorry.

[Klaatu]

Um. Feudalism is not Capitalism. Sorry.

My mistake. There are constitutional differences of these.

[Comrade B]

Well... I think we have all effectively beaten this corpse...

The guy is gone, no one to argue with

[Kayser_Soso]

Well... I think we have all effectively beaten this corpse...

The guy is gone, no one to argue with

Now we just need to salt the earth.

[StalinFanboy]

This one time, I was really hungry, but I wasn't able to buy any food because I don't have a job because jobs are scarce here because of the economic crisis. So then I had to spend the day hungry.


Doesn't sound very free to me :(

[Klaatu]

You can blame the boom-and-bust economic cycle, a primary negative attribute of capitalism,
for your joblessness. Am I wrong, but don't socialist countries guarantee employment?

[Misanthrope]

Materialistic objects make up an individual? Lol, capitalism..