Objections to communism

[crazy comie]

What are the main objections to communism from cappies.

[Hoppe]

No capitalist has any objection to communism, and with communism I mean the endstage, as far as I know.

The most important critique is that this stage cannot be reached and thus, when some crazy lunatic decides to force its will upon the people, you have some nasty side effects which go against believes of the capitalist.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:30 PM
No capitalist has any objection to communism, and with communism I mean the endstage, as far as I know.
Actually that is pretty much correct. However I do have some problems with the ideals of communism but would not be completely against the last stage.

[Osman Ghazi]

The most important critique is that this stage cannot be reached and thus, when some crazy lunatic decides to force its will upon the people, you have some nasty side effects which go against believes of the capitalist.

This is standard reactionary thought really.
I'm sure when Louis heard of the mobs of peasants demanding to rule themselves he would have been heard to remark: 'Ruling themselves? Balderdash! The peasants are too stupid to rule themselves. It is not that I have any problem with democracy, at least with the endstage anyway. But it is important to note that this stage can never be reached. Thus, when you have some crazy lunatic who decides to force his will upon the people, you have some nasty side effects which go against the beleifs of the Crown'

That is why people who say things like that should have their heads lopped off. :lol:

It is the same old argument that has been used again and again to stifle human developement. 'Well, it didn't work before therefore it cannot work'

That is what we call flawed logic.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:30 PM
No capitalist has any objection to communism, and with communism I mean the endstage, as far as I know.
1. Infefficieny
2. Lack of personal freedoms- "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." --Mahatma Gandhi
3. Overbearing gov't (dont tell me that there will be no gov. I have not seen one person on here tell me HOW the goods will be distributed in anarchy, only that they will)- "Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny." --Aeschylus

[Osman Ghazi]

1. What inneffiecieny? There is a topic on this that you might want to read.
2. What can't you do in a capitalist society that you can't do in communist/anarchist society?
3. There will only be a gov. of the people at the local level. The goods will be distributed because the mechanisms will already be in place to distribute them before the state withers away.

Also, tyranny is what we have right now.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 12 2004, 02:16 AM
There will only be a gov. of the people at the local level. The goods will be distributed because the mechanisms will already be in place to distribute them before the state withers away.

Right now

1) Goods are produced
2) Goods are sent to stores
3) People buy goods


How does it work in your system?


Dont tell me "it will already be in place"

[Iepilei]

1) Goods will be produced
2) Goods will be transferred to distribution hubs
3) People will attain them

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 12 2004, 02:01 AM
1. Infefficieny
2. Lack of personal freedoms- "Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." --Mahatma Gandhi
3. Overbearing gov't (dont tell me that there will be no gov. I have not seen one person on here tell me HOW the goods will be distributed in anarchy, only that they will)- "Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny." --Aeschylus
Wow! What a stupid post!
Based on assumptions, and completely ignoring the ideas of anarchism and communism.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 12 2004, 12:46 AM
It is the same old argument that has been used again and again to stifle human developement. 'Well, it didn't work before therefore it cannot work'

That is what we call flawed logic.
Always easy to call it flawed.

You have tried and you have not succeeded. Tell me why it will succeed the next time someone is going to try it.

[iloveatomickitten]

Lack of personal freedoms
Freedom from 'tyranny' only exists when one negates all piety. Government, moral and religion are all dominion over us. Communism isn't freedom and niether is capitalism or any other 'system' for that matter.

"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny."
Go and commit suicide then because you live under tyranny.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:19 AM


You have tried and you have not succeeded. Tell me why it will succeed the next time someone is going to try it.
Becuse as engles once said "I have a presentiment that, thanks to the perplexity and flabbiness of all the others, our Party will one fine morning be forced to assume power and finally to carry out measures that are of no direct interest to us, but are in the general interests of the revolution and the specific interests of the petty bourgeoisie; on which occasion, driven by the proletarian populace, bound by our own printed declarations and plans - more or less falsely interpreted, more or less passionately thrust to the fore in the party struggle - we shall be constrained to undertake communist experiments and perform leaps, the untimeliness of which we know better than anyone else. In so doing we lose our heads - only physically speaking, let us hope - a reaction sets in, and until the world is able to pass historical judgement on such events, we are considered not only beasts, which wouldn't matter, but also bêtes (stupid - Ed) which is much worse. I do not quite see how it could turn out otherwise. In a backward country like Germany, which possesses an advanced party and is involved in an advanced revolution with an advanced country like France, the advanced party must get into power at the first serious conflict and as soon as actual danger is present, and that is, in any event, ahead of its normal time... (Letter to Weydmeyer, April 12, 1853).
That shows how it was predicted there would be somthing like the soviet union. I'm sure you must of herd a million times how the soviet union became a deformed workers state.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:26 AM
Go and commit suicide then because you live under tyranny.
Ah ok.

tyr·an·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-n)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
1. Use of absolute power.
2. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.



Which part of this does the US have?

1. Nope, seperation of power
2. Nope, see 1
3. Nobody here as absolute power
4. As above
5. Nope.

[Osman Ghazi]

Oligarchies are not tyranies then?
That is what you have in the U$.
A financial oligarchy that has control of the big capital.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 03:18 AM
Oligarchies are not tyranies then?
That is what you have in the U$.
A financial oligarchy that has control of the big capital.
Economy!= goverment

[Osman Ghazi]

Umm... Yes?
I don't think I get it.

[crazy comie]

In the industreile world the goverment is baissicly the largest companies wich have a small group of rulers.

[Adamore]

america is a mild form of totalitarian democracy

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by John [email protected] 11 2004, 09:43 PM
Right now

1) Goods are produced
2) Goods are sent to stores
3) People buy goods


How does it work in your system?


Dont tell me "it will already be in place"
There will still be an orgaznization to handle the the distribution of goods, management of public services, enforcement of policies and laws, etc.
Obviously it will be a public organization.
Similar to a government, but by [communist] deffinition, a government is an organization that works in the interests of whichever political group is in power. And politics meaning the persuit of goals for society. And since political interests derrive from class interests, political interests will be pretty much the same among all. Obviously there will be conflicts, we cannot deny this, but the general goal in society will be to improve things for the common working man who have no loyalties to their race, gender, nationality, religion, and most importantly to tehir economic class. So the common goal for all would be the advancement of the whole.

Isn't it spectacular!? :)

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by John Galt+Feb 12 2004, 08:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Feb 12 2004, 08:31 PM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 09:26 AM
Go and commit suicide then because you live under tyranny.
Ah ok.

tyr·an·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-n)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
1. Use of absolute power.
2. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.



Which part of this does the US have?

1. Nope, seperation of power
2. Nope, see 1
3. Nobody here as absolute power
4. As above
5. Nope. [/b]
Which part of this does commnism have?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 08:16 PM
3. There will only be a gov. of the people at the local level.
You said you&#39;re a Trotskyist.

That viewpoint doesn&#39;t fit in very well with Trotskyism, with is a derrivative of Marxism-Leninism and we certainly know that Lenin wasn&#39;t big on localized power.

Heck, ever Marx and Engels wrote about the need for a centralized state apparatus in a little book you might have heard of called the Communist Manifesto.

[Osman Ghazi]

Yes well Lenin didn&#39;t have very flattering things to say about Trotsky so obviously there were some differences.

Again, I&#39;m not some Trotsky cultist who worships at a shrine with his picture and thinks that everything he wrote was handed down directly by the Almighty.

I call myself a Trotskyist because I read Trotsky and agree with his general principles.
Also, I&#39;m a Troskyist in the sense that I theorize a whole lot but i don&#39;t so much else ;)

I would say that Trotskyism is descended from Marxism but not from Marxism-Leninism.

But that being said, i believe what i believe and just because Trotsky didn&#39;t belive that particular thing doesn&#39;t mean that i suddenly stop believing in it.

I think we all saw how that in a more complex economy centralism just doesn&#39;t work because it isn&#39;t so good at anticipating supply and demand. It worked for Lenin though because it was simpler then.

[Valishin]

Nothing at all wrong with communism, as long as it isn&#39;t forced on anyone nor takes anything from anyone that they do not wish to give of their own free will.

Show us a successful instance of communism where individual choice and freedoms are not being hindered nor were they hindered in the process of its creation then we can talk.

I don&#39;t think it is too much to ask for proof that it will work nor is it too much to give people an option to opt out of the system if they so desire.

[Osman Ghazi]

Show us a successful instance of capitalism where individual choice and freedoms are not being hindered nor were they hindered in the process of its creation then we can talk.

The fact is that there are such things as classes.
Now, classes have their interests held up in certain political and economic systems.

For example, in a military dictatorship the interests of the military are in keeping the dictatorship.

Would you say &#39;oh you can&#39;t overthrow the dictatorship because that would infringe on the rights of the military&#39;? No.

So why would you say &#39;oh you can&#39;t overthrow capitalism because that would infringe on the rights of the bourgeoisie&#39;? You can&#39;t.

The fact is that certain classes will always have to be destroyed to implement a better system because the safety of said system will never be secure if you don&#39;t.

[Hoppe]

The fact is that certain classes will always have to be destroyed to implement a better system because the safety of said system will never be secure if you don&#39;t.

Yes, and those who are going to implement the new system will soon be a new ruling class.

[Osman Ghazi]

Yes, the people will be the new ruling class ;)

[iloveatomickitten]

Originally posted by John Galt+Feb 12 2004, 08:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (John Galt @ Feb 12 2004, 08:31 PM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 09:26 AM
Go and commit suicide then because you live under tyranny.
Ah ok.

tyr·an·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-n)
n. pl. tyr·an·nies

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: “I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
1. Use of absolute power.
2. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.



Which part of this does the US have?

1. Nope, seperation of power
2. Nope, see 1
3. Nobody here as absolute power
4. As above
5. Nope. [/b]
&#39;Use of absolute power&#39; - &#39;Nobody here as absolute power&#39;

&#39;Use&#39; does not imply that someone has to use it simply that something uses it (that is it doesn&#39;t require cognition) . Morality has &#39;absolute power&#39; or more to the point the law.

&#39;Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.&#39; That is totally subjective along with &#39;Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly&#39;

And on the subject of definitions - absolute - it can&#39;t exist, absolute is no diferent to perfection.

Perhaps you could use an argument that doesn&#39;t have need of a dictionary deffinition it show a total lack of thought. Tyranny is a comparative word that I used not under the definition but to suggest that both have the same effect on people.

And to misodoctakleidist I would say that the only change between communism and capitalism in terms of freedom is that the state is replaced with society.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 09:29 PM
I would say that Trotskyism is descended from Marxism but not from Marxism-Leninism.
That&#39;s a pretty uneducated thing to say.

Trotsky was a major supporter and member of Leninin&#39;s leadership in the Soviet Union. His ideology is a direct addition upon Lenin&#39;s. Don&#39;t be afraid of the word Leninism because the fucking western bourgeoisie calls hims a brutal totalitarian.

Trotsky never wrote anything condemning Marx&#39;s and Lenin&#39;s ideology concerning a central state organization of the working class as far as I&#39;m concerned.

[Osman Ghazi]

But Lenin did say something like &#39;Trotsky&#39;s words contain much glitter and shine but they are essentially empty&#39;. Something like that anyway.

Why would he say that if Trotsky and Lenin were so similar in thought and ideology.

I&#39;ll admit that Trotsky had no problem with Lenin but Lenin had major problems with Trotsky.

[The Unmoved Mover]

To John Galt-

Lack of personal freedom? Overbearing government? What the hell do you think YOU live in if you live in America? Im guessing your going to say something like " I live in a beautiful Democracy where every man, woman, and child is free to do or say whatever he or she pleases, and any man, woman, or child can come from nothing and go to SOMETHING&#33; YAY&#33;"......please save it......Im already falling off my stool giggling .....and by the way....for those of you I see on this page discussing Americas beautiful " Seperation of Powers".....I&#39;d like to remind you that the president is and has almost always been influenced and payed for by the worlds top corporations...and in reality the office of the president is just a puppet mmk? And Im not a " conspiracy nut".....its provable.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by The Unmoved [email protected] 19 2004, 05:41 PM
To John Galt-

Lack of personal freedom? Overbearing government? What the hell do you think YOU live in if you live in America? Im guessing your going to say something like " I live in a beautiful Democracy where every man, woman, and child is free to do or say whatever he or she pleases, and any man, woman, or child can come from nothing and go to SOMETHING&#33; YAY&#33;"......please save it......Im already falling off my stool giggling .....and by the way....for those of you I see on this page discussing Americas beautiful " Seperation of Powers".....I&#39;d like to remind you that the president is and has almost always been influenced and payed for by the worlds top corporations...and in reality the office of the president is just a puppet mmk? And Im not a " conspiracy nut".....its provable.
Is Noam Chomsky being jailed for "counterrevolutionary activities"? Is there only one party legally recongnized by the state? Does the state control where you go to school or where you live? I would not say that America is perfect, but to compare it to totalitarianism as you obviously think it is., is just retarded.

[LSD]

Is Noam Chomsky being jailed for "counterrevolutionary activities"? Is there only one party legally recongnized by the state? Does the state control where you go to school or where you live? I would not say that America is perfect, but to compare it to totalitarianism as you obviously think it is., is just retarded.

I agree,

And that is a fairly common fallacy on the left. It&#39;s tempting to label any oppressive government as "totalitarian",
but to compare the current US government with actual totalitarian regimes insults the genuine victims of such states.

The United States is among the bottom of industrialized countries in terms of living standard and freedoms, but among all countries in the world, it&#39;s pretty damned high. I can certainly tell you I&#39;d rather live there than, say, Saudi Arabia. The US has exploited the rest of the world far more efficiently and ruthlessly than its own people, and no, the US is not totalitarian.

[Osman Ghazi]

Is Noam Chomsky being jailed for "counterrevolutionary activities"?

If the ruling class can accomplish what violence can accomplish (i.e. securing their rule) without actually having to use it, then why would they use violence?

How many people in America have actually read Chomsky? He&#39;s right, sure. But in order for them to know what he is saying they would have to read his book. As it is they would rather watch Survivor XIV. There isn&#39;t any reason to jail him.


Is there only one party legally recongnized by the state?

No, but there are two parties who stand for exactly the same thing. It doesn&#39;t matter who they vote for because both candidates are owned by their corporate sponsors.


Does the state control where you go to school or where you live?

What does it matter where you live or go to school?


I would not say that America is perfect, but to compare it to totalitarianism as you obviously think it is., is just retarded.

If anything, 1984 was written about America. That was a society that allowed for the mass exploitation of the proles, like America. Also, through &#39;social mobility&#39; the really smart proles who would otherwise have oppsed the regime are able to rise up and join the rulers. Why would you need the stigma of totalitarianism when you get all the benefits anyway?

[LSD]

Osamn, yes, the US is oppresive and corrupt, but surely you&#39;re not saying that it&#39;s totalitarian&#33;&#33;


What does it matter where you live or go to school?

WHAT??

[Osman Ghazi]

As a societal system, it does control all of your life. So in a form yes it is totalitarian. Not politically though.

What I meant about your school and home is &#39;what does it matter to the politicians?&#39;

[Y2A]

1984 was written about the Stalinist Soviet Union.

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 02:50 PM
Show us a successful instance of communism where individual choice and freedoms are not being hindered nor were they hindered in the process of its creation then we can talk.
What the FUCK are you on???

Yeah, i can just see george and his buddies sittin around and say "you know what, Show us a successful instance of communism where individual choice and freedoms are not being hindered nor were they hindered in the process of its creation. and we&#39;&#39;ll go and fuck capitalism, give it all up for communism&#33;"

Do you really think that the U&#036;A will sit back and let someone attempt to create communism, without the U&#036;A "hindering the process of its creation" or without the creaters "individual choice and freedoms being hindered"???

a completely rediculous post&#33;
you fucking retard

[Osman Ghazi]

1984 was written about the Stalinist Soviet Union.

No shit. But look at the comparisons to America. Sure, no one is diseperating or nothin, but look at the deeper political system. Look at certain aspects of it and then look for a comparison in AMerican society and you&#39;ll find more then a few.

[Y2A]

You can compare any and every government to the 1984 model if you look hard enough.

[crazy comie]

America has no democracy as the pepole have no control over the means of production and they have lmost none on they econnomy the bourgeosie has a monopoly on it.

[cubist]

there is nothing wrong with communism. it will work. the reason it won&#39;t work is unfounded and unproven. "it won&#39;t work cus of the natural instinct to be better" or some other bullshit inscribed onto the minds of those trapped in the mess known as democracy.

it won&#39;t work unless it globally takes effect but the endstate of communism would be global would it not?

why are people so afraid of communism? becuase they think it infringes the imaginary rights they have. the only rights in america belong to the rich&#33;

[Individual]

Proof of why it will not work:

Someone, even in such small communities, will always crave the power. The feeling of superiority. The feeling that their views are greater than another, and that they have the right away. When in reality, we are all equal human beings. Nobody is greater than anobody else. Well except we are all greater than those damn Nazis.

[cubist]

as you believe.

i believe all people can walk this world as equal with out irritation or desire to be greater, i believe that it is a religous lie about inherent desires and flaws.

but that is me.

given the chance communism would thrive and the proleteriat will awaken to a life they will have been yearning for. And th cappies will say "it aint that bad after all we still got a house, health care,education, transport, food, clothes, and family"

[Solace]

Someone, even in such small communities, will always crave the power. The feeling of superiority. The feeling that their views are greater than another, and that they have the right away.

Do you know what I noticed?

Apart from the fact that this thing poops every single time, people are always talking about it vaguely. And what you present is not a proof, rather a lax generalization based on oxygen.

I wonder how it interfere with your personal values and attitudes.

If you truly believe what you say about equality, why can&#39;t others feel the same way?

[Individual]

Solace,

I had actually posted another post in response to mine, however it was at the time Che-Lives pooped out today and must not have posted.

In my lost post, I had wrote that I should have retracted my statement of &#39;proof&#39;, and replaced it with the word &#39;example&#39;. I was actually not even basing my statement on whether or not communism would work:


I wonder how it interfere with your personal values and attitudes.

This statement is funny, for did you not notice any similarities between my statement about the &#39;proof&#39; or &#39;example&#39; and this board? This was my real motive for posting this statement.

I guess I could have also replaced the words "will always", before &#39;crave&#39;, with the words "in the past has" or "has usually". Then the statement could have related to communism.

Again, I was hoping someone may catch on to the significance of my statement. If not, no big deal. It just made sense.


If you truly believe what you say about equality, why can&#39;t others feel the same way?

For one: I am not others
For two: many people do feel the same way, those that don&#39;t. They are equally allowed to have their own opinion. You can only be correct to yourself.

[Valishin]

How many people in America have actually read Chomsky? He&#39;s right, sure. But in order for them to know what he is saying they would have to read his book. As it is they would rather watch Survivor XIV. There isn&#39;t any reason to jail him.
Yet oddly enough his works can be checked out for free from any public library.

The point is that the law does not force you to do anything in the US. If you don&#39;t want to obey the speed limits then don&#39;t drive, or limit your driving to your personal property. If you don&#39;t want to work for some corrupt corporation then create your own business. You can even get out of paying taxes if you want, although it does require giving up some protected status as a citizen.


Do you really think that the U&#036;A will sit back and let someone attempt to create communism, without the U&#036;A "hindering the process of its creation" or without the creaters "individual choice and freedoms being hindered"???What is the US going to do invade them for creating a communist government? Of course not. Just as long as they aren&#39;t forcing anyone else to participate. That has always been the problem. Create your communist system if you want, just don&#39;t think we are going to let you put a gun to your rich neighbors head and force him to help fund your system. If this was an issue we would have invaded Cuba long ago. Yes we still hold a grudge against Casto but that is because he used force to take private property purchased by americans in the process. He could have taken control over the government them implemented imminate domain and compensated the people for the property taken but that isn&#39;t what he did. For that Cuba will remain issloated until he is gone. Will we help them build a thriving democratic and capitalist system after that point, if they want the help yes. We think they do based much on the fact that many of them are willing to put themselves under great risk to leave the island and come to the US. Will it be forced on them, of course not. If we were going to do that we would do it while Castro was still alive just to spite him. As such we would have already done it.


it won&#39;t work unless it globally takes effect but the endstate of communism would be global would it not?
Accomplish and maintain that with no use of violance or threat and the volunteery participation of every individual both rich and poor and we have no problem with that. However if at any time in the implementation or maintaining of the system you have to resort to violance against even a single individual who does not wish to participate in said system then we have a problem.

[toastedmonkey]

What is the US going to do invade them for creating a communist government? Of course not.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I thought when i first called you a "fucking retard" i was being a little harsh, now i know it wasnt&#33;
Thats exactly what the U&#036; would do, do you really think that America are so holy and pure that they are here to create a bliss for all mankind? If so your a lost cause. Look at Chille in &#39;73 - a self claimed marxist had democraticaly won an election... America&#39;s response... As the US ambassador to Chile himself said, his job was "to do all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty".
Nixons thoughts on what was needed: "make the Chilean economy scream".
And the old Kissenger quote "I don&#39;t see why we should have to stand by and let a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." Then followed an invasion... How democratic&#33; Thats what america does when someone tries to make a communist government.

Just as long as they aren&#39;t forcing anyone else to participate. That has always been the problem. Create your communist system if you want, just don&#39;t think we are going to let you put a gun to your rich neighbors head and force him to help fund your system.
Communism doesnt force anyone, and it certaintly doesnt hold gun to anyone&#33; Do you see Cuba forcing its "rich neighbour" America to hand over money? NO&#33;
"just dont think we are going to let you" Cheeky Bastard&#33;&#33;&#33; Believe it or not the U&#036; isnt the world police force&#33;


If this was an issue we would have invaded Cuba long ago. Yes we still hold a grudge against Casto but that is because he used force to take private property purchased by americans in the process. He could have taken control over the government them implemented imminate domain and compensated the people for the property taken but that isn&#39;t what he did. For that Cuba will remain issloated until he is gone. Will we help them build a thriving democratic and capitalist system after that point, if they want the help yes. We think they do based much on the fact that many of them are willing to put themselves under great risk to leave the island and come to the US. Will it be forced on them, of course not. If we were going to do that we would do it while Castro was still alive just to spite him. As such we would have already done it.
It wasnt americas land to own, he merely gave it back to the people of the land.
Do you know the meanig of the word democratic? In the most likely case you dont so here it is... Governed By The People&#33; Try this link&#33; (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html)

"If they want help"??? like you&#39;ll give them a choice&#33; they have resources you&#39;ll love to have again, and to turn it back into some Disney-Themed Coca-Cola Endorsed whoreland.

[crazy comie]

America would attack any communist goverment becuse it would be a threat to buissnes as it would abolish exploitation.

[Yazman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:19 AM
You have tried and you have not succeeded. Tell me why it will succeed the next time someone is going to try it.
Stalin&#39;s USSR, and post-Stalin USSR was not working towards communism. That nation was simply a more extreme version of the western world.

[SittingBull47]

As a leftist, my only objection to communism would be that it may go against human nature in most cases.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:46 PM
As a leftist, my only objection to communism would be that it may go against human nature in most cases.
that is not true it goes with human nature.

[&#33;&#33;~rizo~&#33;&#33;]

Yet oddly enough his works can be checked out for free from any public library.

Because, since no one will read it, there isn&#39;t any need to ban it.


What is the US going to do invade them for creating a communist government? Of course not.

So why did America invade Vietnam, North Korea, Guatamela.

And why the hell did they invade Grenada? Are you telling me that Grenada was a military threat to the U&#036;?


However if at any time in the implementation or maintaining of the system you have to resort to violance against even a single individual who does not wish to participate in said system then we have a problem.

The thing is that certain classes will always have their interests invested in a certain system. For example, the nobility needs feudalism. Are you saying that we shoiuldn&#39;t use force to overthrow the nobility? Is that too excessive? What about a military junta? I&#39;m sure that the military wouldn&#39;t agree to a dismantling of that system. So should we not use force against them? Sometimes force needs to be employed when enemies will not let the system become better on it&#39;s own. That is why we need to use force against the bourgoisie. If you have a problem with it, then deal with it. They will never just give up their privelege.