Moral question to communists - Debating the morality of comm [Archive]

Dhul Fiqar

2nd March 2003, 16:43

If you're talking about ARPANET, it's certainly not "wrong" to say it was the precursor to the Internet.

I wouldn't say it was developed by capitalism, as it was an army project not subject to the laws of a free market. It had no real value to companies or consumers in the fifties when the project started, it was purely a government project and as such far more Socialist than you seem to indicate. Of course it was the pet project of a fascist capitalist country, but still has nothing to do with capitalism what so ever.

The modern day internet, on the other hand, was developed by academic institutions.It does not cost much to use the internet, you do not have to pay the U.S. military for the copyright and so there is absolutely nothing capitalist about it.

In fact, I find the internet to be a valuable democratic tool for establishing exactly the types of discussions we have on these boards. Hopefully it can one day be put to work in creating a better system, but untill then all we have to work with is the current one. You seem to think that if one doesn't like the way things are, the logical thing is to go live under a rock. Not so. The logical thing is to work within that system to change it ;)

--- G.

thursday night

2nd March 2003, 16:53

Fidel called the internet one of the more useful inventions of the Western corporate machine.

Xvall

2nd March 2003, 17:08

Since internet is developed bij the US Army and American companies, why do you all use it while you all dislike capitallists?

The internet was indeed invented by the United States military and Internal Affairs appartment in order to easilly communicate through computers. However, this was not the internet as you know today. This basically consisted of nothing more than an e-mail service. The World Wide Web, which is currently used to convey messages, display websites, and browse through various documents and files; this was invented by a man in Sweden. Not a corporation in the United States.

Your are using a cappies medium!! That must be moraly unacceptable for you all.

Lol. I bet you that 90% of the clothes that the capitalists on this board wear were made in China. Should this not be 'morally unacceptable' for them as well? Are you trying to tell me that you don't own anything that was made in another country? So you do. Does this mean that you support the regime in which the product was made; Most certainly not!

deimos

2nd March 2003, 17:17

I think the Internet is a huge chance for us commies.
A few people can do vast havoc. For instance we could let the stock market crash.

morkyboy

2nd March 2003, 20:34

I, as a cappie, are not at all concerned where my clothes are being made, as long as they are cheap. While with communists I sense an anti-american position, so they must find it terrible to use the internet, while it is an american product.

Politrickian

2nd March 2003, 21:03

"I, as a cappie, are not at all concerned where my clothes are being made, as long as they are cheap."

So you don't care that the clothes might be made by children and/or people who hardly earn enough to eat?

morkyboy

2nd March 2003, 21:12

Of course I care a bit, but that is just because their national governments are not able to give the people a better life. The western capitalist cannot give everyone one this world a good life, even so cannot communism. Their is just too much shit on this world to correct it.
The point I was trying to make was that I do not mind using not Western World products from not Western World companies, while I live under the impression that many of the communists on this forum dislike the USA, it's companies and their products that, when they would be consistent, they would not use that products.

Politrickian

2nd March 2003, 21:19

Us Commie's often tend to boycot companies that are known for employing children and/or underpayed adults. And of course, the latest trend is to boycot isreali products because of the whole Zionism stuff they're doing now.

I don't mind using the internet knowing that most of the Software I use to do it(Browser, TCP/IP Protocol, etc) is free(http://www.gnu.org) and is not created by under-payed workers.

If it was invented by the Military, so be it. There is always a good thing with bad things.

Pete

2nd March 2003, 21:20

The internet was theorized by a Canadian named Mashall McCluhan (spelling). He is the other of many books like "The Medium is the Message." Referring to how the medium that something is portrayed on has to do a lot with how it is intrepeteing and that the use of mass media by corporations will mess up the information age that he predicted was on the doorsteps.
As it was already said what we use now was created by a swedish man. So tell me, if the US Army used email, how can the child of an anti-corporate (I believe he was a democratic socialist) Canadian's theory and a Swede be considered an American invention? Do you find it morally wrong that you are using a medium that was created by socialists?
Another question for all the Rightests, or whoever answers, do you think the Internet can be controlled? I personally don't, since it in reality does not even exist.

Politrickian

2nd March 2003, 21:25

The Internet cannot be controlled. It doesn't matter how hard you try there always will be loopholes in software, especially in Microsoft software.

redstar2000

2nd March 2003, 23:30

Morkyboy, communism is not concerned with metaphysical concepts like "morality"...it is a way of looking at human history and of changing it.

The fact that the change would be "good" for most people and "bad" for some people is secondary...though welcome, of course.

Material tools have no consciousness and are "morally neutral". The chemical used to murder millions of Jews was originally formulated as a pesticide.

The internet serves as a medium of information exchange unprecedented in human history...for the first time we have the opportunity to find out what our rulers want to keep secret, to spread that damning information at the speed of light, and to use it to organize popular resistance.

Look at the current anti-war movement for example...in a matter of months more people have been aroused all over the world than ever before; the movement against the American war in Vietnam took six years to reach similar numbers...in the days before the internet.

Yes, there are certainly some products of capitalist technology that are "beyond the pale" of communist usage...I can't imagine a "good" use for napalm.

But until the internet is brought firmly under the control of the ruling class, I will continue to use it and delight in its use. And it is possible that they may not be able to control it...which would have all kinds of very interesting implications.

:cool:

VivoFidel

3rd March 2003, 00:45

Let me ask you a questoin morkyboy, if all of the sudden you found out that the internet were made by a nazi, would that stop you from using it. Remember it is not who made it, but who uses it, and why you use it.

Xvall

3rd March 2003, 02:26

While with communists I sense an anti-american position, so they must find it terrible to use the internet, while it is an american product.

I'll answer your question right off the bat. No, we don't hate ourselves for using the internet. We don't care who made it; it is helpful. Nazi Germany invented the Volkswagen; all of those bastards who drive around in those cars are nothing but a bunch of nazis, am I right? They should be ashamed of themselves. You see; it is quite silly. Of course we are not ashamed. If we were to treat everything in this manner we wouldn't buy houses built by corporations of clothing made by corporations or food mass produced by corporations; essentially we would be running around naked with nothing to eat or drink. Do you want those 7,000,000 people protests to consist of naked, malnourished, teenage communists? I didn't think so.

Palmares

3rd March 2003, 02:53

The internet lacks cencorship, therefore it is a appropriate means to spread an uncorrupted message.

IHP

3rd March 2003, 03:03

This is one of the funnier stances I have seen from the Capitalists on this site. This half-hearted, groundless argument is laughable morkyboy. Capitalists have money. Then damn money it is morally unacceptable for to possess any. Oh, there's some Funk and Wagnalls on my book sehlf. Surely this enormous wealth of information was printed by a large corporation. Therefore I shall burn them, as I do not wish to tarnish myself with them.

I can't be bothered putting forward rational comments, this thread is just too funny.

--IHP

morkyboy

3rd March 2003, 07:55

But this demonstrates also something else that lies beneath my latest posts. All invention are being made in a capitalist society, not in a communist one.

Dhul Fiqar

3rd March 2003, 10:01

What about orbital flight? The Yanks admitted ripping that one off from the Soviets :biggrin:

And we're all real lucky that Capitalism produced inventions such as nuclear bombs and armor piercing bullets and profitable child pornography rings and paramilitary drug-running gangs and etc. etc. etc.

It's pointless to either accuse or praise a system for producing an invention. It's even more pointless to go around making lists of acceptable inventions on the basis of political intregues at the time of invention, such things may not even have any impact on the inventor himself.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 6:04 pm on Mar. 3, 2003)

sc4r

3rd March 2003, 11:27

Quote: from morkyboy on 3:13 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
I have a pounding question for all of the communists here.
Since internet is developed bij the US Army and American companies, why do you all use it while you all dislike capitallists? Your are using a cappies medium!! That must be moraly unacceptable for you all.

First off socialism is a system not a religion. Socialists cannot live as socialists in isolation; a socialist believes that the socialist system will bring benefits for all, not that there is some virtue in self denial. There probably are many socialists who are also selfless philanthropic individuals but it isnt a neccessary condition.

I think committed activist socialists will in general avoid as far as possible activities and purchases which actually enhance the success of capitalism but I doubt many have any objection to partaking of any wealth it may create. Why should they ? even if they felt it was 'unfair' to steal the fruits of the enemy (a laughable idea given that we want to bring the enemy down) they could rightly claim that they actually are contributing to the production of those fruits anyway because they have no choice.

And having said all that the development of the internet is not remotely a US government initiative anyway. Most histories attribute its inception to university systems which were developed in a decidely communal way and today it is largely an anarchic medium within which capitalists have found ways to make profit.

I'm not stealing by using the internet. I paid for the computer I'm using; I pay for the bandwidth; and I'm exposed to all sorts of adverts while I use it. That I choose not to take any notice of those adverts is a risk the capitalist corporations have chosen to take, thats up to them and personally if they choose to remove them I'll be even happier.

Is the internet better for capitalist attentions ? Well even 5 years ago a search for info was likely to turn up the stuff you were looking for very quickly; today most searches turn up endless numbers of Ads before you can find anything; and it is getting worse. On the other hand it is of course cheaper than it was. A socialist solution would be to fund the internet from social funds; save the money spent on developing commercial web-sites by simply not having most of them and make it both better and cheaper to run. The only reason it looks cheaper to do it commercially is because you dont count that part of your spending which gets invested in it as coming from you; but of course it does.

Even this leaves aside the fact that as a socialist there is nothing whatsoever in doctrine that prevents me from developing a site or providing technology designed entirely for personal gain. Socialism forbids me to own the means of another persons production, It does not forbid me from selling what I create myself.

Sirion

3rd March 2003, 15:13

Inventions has mainly been made in capitalist countried because they have usually enjoyed a much larger amount of wealth than socialist.

Just compare Russia and U$A just before the revolution:

Russia was a land of poverty. Very few could read, and a TINY upper class held almost all wealth. The society was pre-capitalistic, or feudalistic, so class differences were even larger than in cappie-land.
U$A, on the other hand, was rich and quickly gaining influence, all over the world. Within 40 years, they would replace Great Britain as the worlds leading superpower.

Then, WWII came. Half of the Soviet Union was destroyed. Not one shot was fired on U$A soil.

Still, under these grossly unfair circumstances, USSR managed to archieve many great things before USA, like the first living creature (from Earth) in space, the first man in space, superior military technology, and they even nearly kept up with U$A in the computerrace in the early fifties!

How is that, for a country that was a third-worlder 40 years ago?

The same pattern of underdeveloping was in all countries where socialism has gained ground. And, it is easy to see that these communities have developed quicker than the U$A-lapdogs.

Morkyboy = Monkeyboy?

(Edited by Sirion at 3:15 pm on Mar. 3, 2003)

von Mises

3rd March 2003, 16:11

If you spend all of your money on rocket engineering then it isn't a great achievement. The USSR only did this to show the world that communism wasn't that bad. But the only thing the people in Western countries could see was the propaganda, not the suffering of the people.

The only good thing was the mig, though inferior to western plaines most pilots feared them.

(Edited by von Mises at 4:13 pm on Mar. 3, 2003)

Pete

3rd March 2003, 16:22

Maybe if this world could see the suffering people that Capitalism and your Neo-liberalist ideals have brought about they would not support them. Wait. THIS WORLD IS LIVING THEM.

socialist2000

3rd March 2003, 17:59

Quote: from Politrickian on 4:05 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
"The Capitalists shall sell us the rope with which we shall hang them"
-Lenin

LOL Thats a clever quote. :)

von Mises

3rd March 2003, 18:26

I do not consider myself a neo-liberalist. Actually I don't even know what it means since it is only used by socialist/communists.

(Edited by von Mises at 6:27 pm on Mar. 3, 2003)

socialist2000

3rd March 2003, 20:20

No all the soviots inventions were great like, the Mig which for decades dominated the sky's killing loads of people ect.

socialist2000

3rd March 2003, 20:21

I actually lie they did also invent space flight which was a great achivement.

suffianr

3rd March 2003, 23:19

Your argument is ridiculous, morkyboy.

This is a Leftist web-community, not an Amish one. Do you expect us to snail mail instead? :)

The Internet is not a capitalist product, although one of it's fucntions is to enhance the mobility of business activities i.e. buy anything from anywhere, that is not it's sole purpose.

The Net is a universal medium of communication, and although it supports free enterprise, it does not necessarily thrive because of it.

There is nothing contradictory about leftists using the Net.

Larissa

4th March 2003, 01:11

Quote: from VivoFidel on 9:45 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
Let me ask you a questoin morkyboy, if all of the sudden you found out that the internet were made by a nazi, would that stop you from using it. Remember it is not who made it, but who uses it, and why you use it.
I second that, VivoFidel. And welcome to the Forum!

Som

4th March 2003, 02:15

Quote: from von Mises on 4:11 pm on Mar. 3, 2003

The only good thing was the mig, though inferior to western plaines most pilots feared them.

Inferior? Hardly, all the mig fighters, and to an even greater extent, the sukhoi planes, were at least as advanced technology as their western counterparts.

The only time western planes made significant jumps ahead of soviet planes was with the use and invention of stealth, most of which was happened either during the final years and after the fall of the soviet union.

antieverything

4th March 2003, 03:06

Think how much money and man-power has been put into creating new weapons of death over the last half century by both the US and USSR...what if this was put into making the world a better place to live?

Think of the things created by the public sector...the internet, space travel, the human genome project (yes, it is funded by the government CI)...think of the amazing things that could have been done if we had stopped putting our efforts toward new and improved killing machines and put it instead into consumer goods and technologies to benefit the public good. Surely the private sector could not compete with the wonders we could create.

Anonymous

5th March 2003, 17:22

from the marxist-leninist manual:

"when above the ruins of the capitalist society, a socialist system is builted, the "denial" of capitalism doesnt mean total destruction of everything mankind created under that system. the productive forces and the valuable realizations of cience and culture are preserved and fomented. What is usefull from all that capitalism created, far from being destroyed by the proletariat revolution, shall serve as base for new advances and for the construction of socialism."

(i had to translate this myself)

CruelVerdad

5th March 2003, 21:28

1.- I´m not communist, i´m socialist.
2.- Everything is valid so you can reach what you want to. for ex. Internet.
3.- It´s a way to communicate with others of your kind.

Anonymous

5th March 2003, 21:35

1.- I´m not communist, i´m socialist.

now thats stupid....

Again, a socialist that isnt comunist isnt socialist....

Palmares

5th March 2003, 23:05

The soviets were pretty awesome at espionage, that definately wasn't a capitalist creation.

But they (the US) sure as hell liked getting it (better espionage) off the Soviets.

antieverything

5th March 2003, 23:58

Again, a socialist that isnt comunist isnt socialist.... Let's just get this straight once and for all: Communist generally refers to Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, and Stalinists while Socialist generally refers to non-Marxist, democratic, or simply less radical anti-Capitalists.

CrazyBoris

6th March 2003, 01:42

Quote: from Politrickian on 4:05 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
"The Capitalists shall sell us the rope with which we shall hang them"
-Lenin

This seems entirely too hypocritical, sounds like he was just making excuses for future commies.

Remember, without capitalism you'd be poor, and there'd be no communism.

If I finally decide that I want to work 750 hours for a pair of blue jeans I'll let you know, but until then will you kindly pass the Starbucks.

Comrade Trave

6th March 2003, 01:46

I agre 1000%. commies are for the devilthe capitalists are gonna kick the dickens outa ya.
muerte la revolucion
muahhahahaha!

Pete

6th March 2003, 02:38

Very werid. I bet Comrade Trave and CrazyBoris are the same people, or atleast friends. With thier nice hypocritical avatars and all.

Marxists recongize the progression of history, Communism being the final stage. Pre-communal, Feudal, Capitalist, Socailist, Communist.

Trave, the devil does not exist.

CrazyBoris

6th March 2003, 05:37

We're friends but the point remains, I came here to learn about communism and why everyone hates capitalism. I was treated with much disrespect, so I gave it back. But, I'd still like to know abour communism, I know there are flaws in capitalism, but don't similar flaws exist with communism?

Domino

6th March 2003, 11:43

Quote: from CrazyBoris on 11:37 pm on Mar. 5, 2003
I know there are flaws in capitalism, but don't similar flaws exist with communism?

No

Pete

6th March 2003, 12:26

Scrolll down to the bottom of the page and read the archives first. Maybe the Communist Manifesto or Man and Socialism in Cuba. Read some of the threads in Politics and THeory. Don't start by insulting communism if you are here to learn. Learn first.

Larissa

6th March 2003, 14:16

Quote: from CrazyPete on 11:38 pm on Mar. 5, 2003
Very werid. I bet Comrade Trave and CrazyBoris are the same people, or atleast friends. With thier nice hypocritical avatars and all.

Marxists recongize the progression of history, Communism being the final stage. Pre-communal, Feudal, Capitalist, Socailist, Communist.

Trave, the devil does not exist.
Curiuos they also share the same avatar, he he he.

Uhuru na Umoja

6th March 2003, 14:38

The whole point of Marxist-Leninism is that the state - a creation of the upper classes - is used to destroy its creators. Why then can't we use the internet in a similar manner?

EnvelopedInFear

6th March 2003, 23:11

I really don't understand what you all are fighting for. There are going to be problems with every system of government. Plus the fight for Communism is even greater considering its a desperate minority, no matter how devoted you all are.

On the other hand, I can respect your beliefs, but as cliche as it is, there are somethings you cannot change, and suffering, poor and rich classes are some of those things. When you go through using Communism, there are obviously going to be leaders. And what's to stop these leaders from taking money other than the simple doctrines they commit to?

I don't want to critizise communism or any other left wing society, I'm trying to keep an open mind, I don't love the current system by any terms.

Anonymous

7th March 2003, 00:10

"Plus the fight for Communism is even greater considering its a desperate minority, no matter how devoted you all are. "
wrong...
the fight for communism is in a "low season"...
but it is growing, the proof of it is Lula´s election...

"there are somethings you cannot change, and suffering, poor and rich classes are some of those things"

wrong...
you can eleminate suffering, at least the most alarming cases of it, i am speaking of hunger, and the majority of diseases taht alredy have cure..
what we need is more socialist countrys, expecially socialist revolutions in the industrialized countrys to help the third world countrys..
as for the rich classes you can eliminate them, with planned economy...this will not be easy since the burguase will retaliate, but we have the strenght to fight back too...

"When you go through using Communism, there are obviously going to be leaders. And what's to stop these leaders from taking money other than the simple doctrines they commit to? "

ifthe system is trully socialist then the leaders will have litle oportunity to rob the people...

Hate Your State

8th March 2003, 22:25

"Marxists recongize the progression of history, Communism being the final stage. Pre-communal, Feudal, Capitalist, Socailist, Communist. "

They should also recognize the last stage which Marx himself acknowledged. Anarchism.

IPkurd

8th March 2003, 22:33

its good 4 us 2 use tha net, because we'll communicate using the net and might start a revolution with the net so how bad would usa look if revolutions place with because of the internet

Anonymous

8th March 2003, 22:44

"They should also recognize the last stage which Marx himself acknowledged. Anarchism. "

they do...

Hate Your State

8th March 2003, 23:24

It wasn't mentioned in the list he gave, that's why I put it there. He said communism was the final stage, which it most certainly is not. I'd rather completely skip communism myself....

Hate Your State

8th March 2003, 23:29

"the anarchist" im curious why your avatar is a flag that represents total authority and fascism, yet your name implies that you support libertarianism.

EnvelopedInFear

8th March 2003, 23:42

ifthe system is trully socialist then the leaders will have litle oportunity to rob the people...

Why's this, cause there is no money in the system to rob?

I'm content with my capitalistic nation, maybe even proud. Regardless, the "war" with Iraq is from Capitalism, its from George W. If it were up to me, we wouldn't go to war. We wouldn't get that invovled in others affairs.

Hate Your State

8th March 2003, 23:44

"Why's this, cause there is no money in the system to rob?"

No, you should read up on your economics. It's because there would be checked authority and the means of production are in the hands of the workers.

Hate Your State

8th March 2003, 23:45

Even more efficient would be decentralized power, or none at all.

EnvelopedInFear

9th March 2003, 00:03

Decentralized Power. That's an oxymoron right?

Anonymous

9th March 2003, 00:25

since when is the flag of the international communist movement a symbol of fascism and authoritanism?

ánd the nick is very old and inacurate..

i am not the liberalist i used to be anymore.....
im more authoritan politicly speakingm, yet socialiy im still very liberalist

Saint-Just

9th March 2003, 00:46

Haha....yeah, didn't know what I was talking about.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 12:51 pm on Mar. 9, 2003)

ComradeJunichi

9th March 2003, 00:49

HAHAHAHA!!! Dude, that's the first fucked up post. Keep on getting wasted, man. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

We're fucked up and wasted!

Anonymous

9th March 2003, 00:53

Dream logic.

Hate Your State

9th March 2003, 02:40

The flag of the USSR represents fascism because during the whole time that country was communist, there were state murders and abductions of so-called counter-revolutionaries. The KGB in my opinion could be described as a terrorist organization.

"Decentralized power" is in no way an oxymoron. It simply means that there is no concentration of power in any individual or group's hands.

You say you have liberal beliefs when it comes to the social aspect of society, but authoritarian politically. What do you mean by this? If the politicians are authoritarians, then naturally the social system will become the same way, not liberal.

EnvelopedInFear

9th March 2003, 05:26

At some point in your "decentralized power" timeline, someone is going to have to make a decision that will affect others. Now wouldn't that person have some form of power?

And if you're talking about leaving it up to committees and the like, then that's why the U.S. has checks and balances and advisors. In every situation imaginable, someone has power, and someone has less power.

Give the working class power? Good Luck.

If you want everyone making $500 an hour of cheap money go ahead. But someone is going to have to make regulations, and thats where the power comes in to play.

Sure, I'd like to change the world, but I can't. And neither can any of you. People die everyday, its not dependent on the name of the political party. Communism itself is ironic, in the sense that it wants to unite everyone, but all of the believers are full of hatred for everything and everyone else.

Comrade Trave

9th March 2003, 05:43

So how bout that communism good stuff...???...
yeah... interesting... communism... GOOOOOOOOOOOO
RIGHTISTSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DOWN WITH THE LEFTISTS!!!!!!!!!

Comrade Trave

9th March 2003, 05:46

So how bout that communism good stuff...???...
yeah... interesting... communism... GOOOOOOOOOOOO
RIGHTISTSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DOWN WITH THE LEFTISTS!!!!!!!!!
PEACE OUT...

EnvelopedInFear

9th March 2003, 05:49

Why don't jackasses like these get banned immediately?

Dhul Fiqar

9th March 2003, 06:47

Because I'm not a moderator.

Yet. ;)

Anonymous

9th March 2003, 07:09

It depends on what you associate the flag with.

While the hammer and sickle are meant to symbolise unity between the peasants and the proletarians (at least to my understanding), most people today associated it with the Soviet Union and thus authoritarianism and oppression. Because of this, I don't think it would be very wise to use it as a symbol for internationalistic anarchism these days.

Saint-Just

9th March 2003, 13:15

Quote: from Hate Your State on 2:40 am on Mar. 9, 2003
You say you have liberal beliefs when it comes to the social aspect of society, but authoritarian politically. What do you mean by this? If the politicians are authoritarians, then naturally the social system will become the same way, not liberal.

I think you are referring to me about this. I am not liberal in any way at all. Someone else said that, I quoted it, but unfortunately at the time I wrote it I was, as Comrade Junichi say, wasted. So I deleted part of the quote commands, so it looked like it was me saying that. I think so anyway, I don't really remember. Authority is legitimised power, I do believe in legitimised power.

EnvelopedInFear

9th March 2003, 17:47

Sorry to get off topic, but I didn't want to make a new thread....

Anyway, here's a question for you commies in the U.S.:

Do you think its right that you can talk and conspire about communism and critique the current government?

Now imagine if you will what it would be like for rightists in a communist nation, talking about what they believe to be right, but being imprisoned or killed for doing so. You now have the blessing of this in the US, but would rightists have this 'liberty' in your country?

Anonymous

9th March 2003, 18:06

there arent any communist countrys...
onlysocialist countrys
im sick and tired of repeating this...

the kind of procedure you are talking about isnt done insocialist countrys, it is a fascist aspect not a socialist one...

EnvelopedInFear

10th March 2003, 01:33

I never said there was a communist nation.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but when Russia was communist did anyone get killed for speaking against the government?

Pete

10th March 2003, 01:34

Quote: from EnvelopedInFear on 8:33 pm on Mar. 9, 2003
I never said there was a communist nation.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but when Russia was communist did anyone get killed for speaking against the government?

Hypocrite.

Anonymous

10th March 2003, 01:47

"I never said there was a communist nation.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but when Russia was communist did anyone get killed for speaking against the government? "
in pre stalinist times, no, in stalinist times yes, in post-stalinist times no....

synthesis

10th March 2003, 02:42

"Free speech is, essentially, a bourgeois notion."
-V.I. Lenin

anyways...

No free-speech murders in pre-Stalinist times? I hope you're not talking about Czarist Russia, Soviet, because ol' Nicky the Second was one of the most brutal suppressers of free speech of his time.

Domino

10th March 2003, 03:47

Quote: from EnvelopedInFear on 11:47 am on Mar. 9, 2003
You now have the blessing of this in the US, but would rightists have this 'liberty' in your country?

Blessing in U$? Don't make me laugh! In that country you get arrested for saying "left".

EnvelopedInFear

10th March 2003, 17:52

So you don't live here but you think you know what's going on here?

Domino

10th March 2003, 20:45

Quote: from EnvelopedInFear on 11:52 am on Mar. 10, 2003
So you don't live here but you think you know what's going on here?

I don't think I know. I know.

EnvelopedInFear

10th March 2003, 21:16

tetelives, do you live in the United States?

Domino

11th March 2003, 02:35

Hell no! Thank God I don't. You can tell me all your "You don't live in the U$, so don't talk of what you don't know" speech. Well, be my guest, you won't change my mind.

EnvelopedInFear

11th March 2003, 03:02

I think the fact that you substitute a cash sign in the name of the United States tells me enough about your knowledge of my homeland.

EnvelopedInFear

11th March 2003, 03:05

Oh by the way, you communist realize how much harder your lives would be without capitalism right?

How many of you practice what you preach, and have few material possessions and boycott capitalistic things. Or do you just suggest it to others?

How about all of the start up tech companies that make your cell phones and pioneered the PC your using right now to post? You wouldn't have that in a communist society. No one would put up the money or capital to start it, and even if they did, you wouldn't be living as a commie anymore.

(Edited by EnvelopedInFear at 3:06 am on Mar. 11, 2003)

Domino

11th March 2003, 03:19

*yawn*

EnvelopedInFear

11th March 2003, 03:22

I'm not a complete cappie, I'd just like to know how you support your opinions, but instead I get ignored. In the first place its stupid to soley align yourself to one -ism. Despite how much I'll be ridiculed, my feelings fit in many place. I can certainly see many of the points communism makes on its behalf, but I can also see how prosperous I, and my nation are through capitalism. And I know we had to put other nations down to get here, and I sure as hell don't condone that.

canikickit

11th March 2003, 03:43

As a communist, one has to make concessions to your beliefs in today's world. Capitalism and money are too powerful.

I happen to think that boycotting certain companies such as Nike is a complete waste of time, but I understand why it might be done on moral grounds.

How about all of the start up tech companies that make your cell phones and pioneered the PC your using right now to post? You wouldn't have that in a communist society. No one would put up the money or capital to start it

The idea is that people remove their self centred ways from their frames of reality, and take it upon themselves to better society. There is no reason to suggest humanity could not come together and do positive things for reasons outside of profit and self perpetuation. Not today and not tomorrow, but hopefully one day retarded people who fail to have a positive attitude that the world can change will die off.