the US and communism

[allied56]

I just want to know why the USA hate communism with sooo much passion. Pure hostory shows that they obviuosly dont like it and still wondering if you are stilll soooooooooo anti communism.
A few deatils of what communsin dod to the USA to make them hate it would help?

[DrunkenUno]

I just want to know why the USA hate communism with sooo much passion. Pure hostory shows that they obviuosly dont like it and still wondering if you are stilll soooooooooo anti communism.
A few deatils of what communsin dod to the USA to make them hate it would help?

Communism goes against the very fabric of American society. In the US, if you are smart, skilled, ambitious, etc, you can get ahead in life, and if you are a stupid worthless lazy bum you wont do shit. You are rewarded for your abilities. However, in Communism, that worthless lazy bum would be just as "successful" as you, even though you deserve to be much more successful.

Communism robs the successful to give to the unsuccessful.

Communism is also inherently anti-religion, and the US is an extremely religious country.

[Blacksand]

Who is a communist? Someone who read and believed Marx and Lenin.
Who is an anticommunist? The one who read and understood them.

Lenin/Trotsky's communism of 1917-1921, as well as the state Stalin built in the 30's were a perversion of the ideas of Marx and Engels. The horrible nightmare that Stalin had implemented was mild compared to the Lenin/Trotsky's version, which, in turn, was somewhat milder than what Marx/Engels proposed. Stalinism can be rightfully called Communism with a humane face, it was very gentle compared to what Marx/Engels wanted.

Communist ideology requires a total surrender of personal freedom and privacy to the will of the state. The complete antithesis of the principals America was founded on.

In addition, Marx/Engels are quite vague on the issue of family, though they clearly imply abolition of the family and introduction of community of women. In the twenties there were public organized deflowerings of young girls by the Red Army soldiers. Stalin returned to the women certain rights, i.e, the right to say "no". Nevertheless, the family was continuously assaulted, children were encouraged to report their parents to the state, individual's private family matters were discussed on Party meetings, etc.

Education - Well, here they were as good as their word. Public education was mandatory, educating children at home was a felony, organized religious education was outlawed. The original idea was that the state would take all children from mothers (remember, there are no families, promiscuity is enforced, so in the absence of genetic testing, there cannot be a concept of a 'father') for public upbringing, this is not purposeful cruelty, just a question of pure efficiency in both input - resources spent on children and output - their indoctrination. You may dispute the validity of that, but then you will have to explain how they intended to feed all these single mothers. Well, the state did not do that. When a family member was arrested, i.e., drafted into the industrial army of Gulag, or just murdered by the People's Court, the spouse was arrested too; the crime was member of the family of the traitor of the motherland, while the children were sent to orphanages.

Public education might not be necessarily evil and mandatory education might even look like a good idea for the modern technological society, but mandatory AND public means brainwashing, and thus is clearly the opposite of freedom. You might find Separation of School and State a more appropriate policy.

Labor - Gulag was one huge labor army, and people were drafted there - you can hardly call the procedure 'legal' - by millions. But Gulag probably never accounted for more than 10-20% of the Gross Domestic Product, although most of the military research was done there - people like Tupolev and Korolev were imprisoned and had their design bureaus in the prison camps. During certain periods, city workers could not change jobs. Being 5 minutes late was a felony.

A legitimate question arises - who bankrolled Lenin before 1917? The Imperial Germany did - with Lenin's official program that qoute: 'The military defeat of our own national government will lead to a revolution', his success was in the best interests of Germany. Their investment in Lenin proved wise - the communists surrendered Russia in February 1918, 4 months after grabbing the power, and paid enormous reparations until Germany was defeated by the Western Allies in November 1918. What about before 1914? They robbed banks. It was called 'Expropriation of Expropriators' and was organized by Stalin.

How anyone can support such a system of gross inhumanity is completely beyond me. Slave labor, forced sex, stolen children, purges, and not to mention the complete failure of said system as an economic force. It's an equation destined for failure. Even if you add all the innocents persecuted, tortured and murdered, all over the world, including by the Nazis, you will never even approach a quarter of the number of innocent victims of communists. Remember, that includes Collectivization in Russia, The Cultural Revolution in China and the Cambodian Killing Fields. The balance is against them, the true catalysts of genocide. Suffice it to say that nobody was sent to jail just for being a communist in the USA. People who were sent to prison camps in the USSR throughout it's existence for anti-soviet propaganda and slandering of the Soviet System number tens of thousands. Losing a job can be very unpleasant, but compare it with what the communists would have done to the rest of us, and what they actually did in every single country where they took power, and you would agree that it was quite mild. The Soviet Union was a monster, bent on the world domination, with the ultimate goal of total elimination of individual freedom.

That's why I hate communists.

[DrunkenUno]

Blackie ftw :)

[RazielDemon]

You may note that a large part of the reason for Marx's ideas about the unsuccessfuly and poor having to be equal may well have been that he was himself on the brink of homelessness for a large part of his life, having to life off Engels's money.

Just a little tidbit I came across :)


I have a little difficutly understanding the difference between socialism and communism. So far as I understand it socialism is communism with a smile or something?

I personaly am for the poor and weak to be taken care of by the richer. This is socialism I believe. To NOT take care of those who can or will not take care of themselves is, I think, a rather bad thing, and one of the greatest flaws in a capitalistic society.

[tom]

Black certainly knows his politics.

The US is/was "anti-communist" not just on humane grounds, but for the fact that the rise of Communism required a revolution and usurping of the republic, which is obviously not what the US Government wanted. Also, when Russia rose to international power, the United States feared what they could potentially do, and, since they were communists as well, the United States began to fear and hate communism.

[allied56]

damm its soo weird i aint againmst the thing and drunken what you sed about communsim robs from the succesful and gives to the unseccseful, imo thats bullshit. It dosnt take from any group, the idea was everyone would support each other and thered be no problems with ecomeny and money etc... not to steal from rich people and give it to bums. But i read that nig massive answer and communsim aint all bad it wokred for china right?

[DrunkenUno]

damm its soo weird i aint againmst the thing and drunken what you sed about communsim robs from the succesful and gives to the unseccseful, imo thats bullshit. It dosnt take from any group, the idea was everyone would support each other and thered be no problems with ecomeny and money etc... not to steal from rich people and give it to bums. But i read that nig massive answer and communsim aint all bad it wokred for china right?

"Everyone would support eachother."

What if I'm rich, and I don't want to support? I am forced to, which means I have to give up MY money and wealth, to support some worthless bum who has neither.

And it didn't "work" for China, as China did not become successful economically until it began to embrace capitalism. Its a joke that China even considers itself communist anymore.

[LardGibs]

Communism has to be centrally planned, which is why peasants often starve, etc. The reason why capitalism flourishes, at least in theory, is because of 'the invisible hand' moving goods and services about and determining their price.

Democratic Socialism is more appealing than Communism.

[Morpheus]

Black was right, he certainly did his homework. And yes, allied, the money was in fact taken away from the rich. But it wasn't really given to the poor, it was government property.

The original idea of communism was not a bad one, the problem is it only looked good on paper. Corruption is so much more massive under communism, almost nothing worked like it was supposed to. Only on the very small scale it could actually function normally - get an isolated group of people(a community) and put in charge a selfless person with a good head on the shoulders.

And Black, mandatory public education works good if you take away history and literature.

[MVB]

Allied, I think you are mixing up communism and welfare. It's one thing to lightly tax everyone and use some of the tax revenues to help poor people -- that's called welfare.

Communism/socialism aims at the equalization of all individuals. Lazy bum who doesn't want to work gets just as much money and housing and food as intelligent, ambitious and successful individual. It sucks, because it simply isn't a humane, reward-based system. It basically states "individual human lives are worthless, only the collective whole matters."

[Karmashock]

damm its soo weird i aint againmst the thing and drunken what you sed about communsim robs from the succesful and gives to the unseccseful, imo thats bullshit. It dosnt take from any group, the idea was everyone would support each other and thered be no problems with ecomeny and money etc... not to steal from rich people and give it to bums. But i read that nig massive answer and communsim aint all bad it wokred for china right?

First, are we still? Yes... we kill commies on sight.

Second, why? They tried to destroy us and threatened our friends around the world. Furthermore, we consider submission to them to be a kind of slavery. The US worshiping freedom would rather die then submit to that.

Third, what did they do to us? They threatened our friends, pleaded to end our way of life, filled our country with spys, made us fearful, forced us to protect people all over the world from them, and threatened to destroy us.



So why do we hate them? Why should we not hate them? Name a communist society that existed at any point in time that you would rather live in then the US. Communism is state enslavement of the whole population.

[JADezimar]

And China Has in its pasts, persecuted most religions at one point or time in its communistic history.

[Karmashock]

All communists do that... it's part of the creed. Communism wants to dominate the whole society in every way... usually violently. Capitalism doesn't care what you do so long as you pay your bills... and republican democracy says that you can do what you like so long as it's cool with the super majority.

[Ummon]

I don't think the U.S. actually "hate" communism. More likely, the U.S. have values and ideals which are incompatible with communism. This probably because communism is the unsuccesful system par-excellence.

In truth, communism is an unnatural system, an attempt of some intellectual to impose artificial order on society, disregarding human nature.

In every conflict there is always a winner and a loser, and nature is a permanent conflict. Communism tries to eliminate the losing side, and make everybody a winner, whatever his merits and capacities.

This makes it impossible for the communist system to work, since there is no gain to be obtained through success that cannot be obtained through submission and loyalty to the system. The system effectively disencourages success and initiative.

Lately all communist states have allowed property and capitalism because only this way their economies work. Communism, infact, does not exist anymore: the ex-communist countries are now totalitarian capitalist states, all except Cuba and North Korea which are infact terribly poor and on the brink of economic failure.

[DrunkenUno]

the ex-communist countries are now totalitarian capitalist states, all except Cuba and North Korea which are infact terribly poor and on the brink of economic failure.

Actually Cuba is doing quite well and is somewhat of an abberation. They have the best healthcare and school systems, and donate millions of dollars of aid and hundreds of trained doctors to many African nations in need. The fact that Cuba is poor is somewhat due to the economic embargo.

[allied56]

ok, well in practice it didnt work, but i dont know if any of you have read that book that marx(i think it was) wrote, the idea looks amazing but im thinking in thoery its a geniius idea, in practice it sucks. Is this right in your opinions?

[2biT]

National Socialism is the way forward (with out raical periscution of course), look what it did for germany in the 30's..

[Blacksand]

Ha, I see 2Bit's got an intresting point of view. Read Mein Kampf and planning the Fourth Reich, are we? :lol: I'm kidding there, in case you can't tell. Don't take offense.

Here's the deal, flat out. Communist states only work in a small way. The larger the society, the more corruption and the more likely it is to fail. The exact same way that capitalist and democratic states only really work for larger or more well off nations.

As for China, even Mao himself proclaimed more than once that qoute: 'I don't care if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice' .. in regards to the economic differences between capitalism and communism. And as for Chinese religious supression, if anything the basic state of the chinese religious mindset HELPED them take control. The closest thing the people ever had to a religious leader was Confucious, and he preached conformity as the way to spiritual salvation.


Allied - listen to what you are saying. Have you actually read and comprehended what Marx is trying to say in that book? Look back on my post, the absolute hell on earth that Stalin was responsible for is a perversion of Marx and Engel's ideas and if anything, much more MILD than what was proposed. You want an idea of what a true communist state is like, read Orwell's 1984 or read Animal Farm, you might actually be able to understand what's REALLY going on.

If you want an example of communist factions that have managed to work reasonably well .. there are really only three places to look. Extreme right wing militias operate under a socialistic premise, everyone laboring for the good of the group, everyone does their part, and yes .. for the most part, there is the forced communial sex. Same thing is with the so-called hippie communes, which do indeed work along the same principal, except they aren't founded on the ideals of hate .. unless they happen to be extreme left wing enviro-centric zionist terrorists killing loggers by spiking trees and blowing up equipment. But that's for another post.

Cuba works because it's a small, isolated, tiny country with a small population base. There isn't ROOM for much corruption, but you'll notice they obviously don't have much heavy industry, or much industry at all for that matter. They are an agricultural society, but the people do have good mechanical skills, as evidenced by the fact that they have kept cars over 50 years old for the most part in great working condition.

[DrunkenUno]

Cuba works because it's a small, isolated, tiny country with a small population base. There isn't ROOM for much corruption, but you'll notice they obviously don't have much heavy industry, or much industry at all for that matter. They are an agricultural society, but the people do have good mechanical skills, as evidenced by the fact that they have kept cars over 50 years old for the most part in great working condition.

cuba ftw

[Entropy]

As for China, even Mao himself proclaimed more than once that qoute: 'I don't care if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice' ..

I thought that was Deng.

[allied56]

omg so strong opionions on this, you guys all hate it, but imo i think it has potentioal to work but just corrupte pricks have tried it out,

[Karmashock]

I don't think the U.S. actually "hate" communism. More likely, the U.S. have values and ideals which are incompatible with communism.
Trust me, we hate them. That they're humiliated is enough to make us happy for the time being however. In time we will seen them removed one way or another.
========================================
Actually Cuba is doing quite well and is somewhat of an abberation. They have the best healthcare and school systems, and donate millions of dollars of aid and hundreds of trained doctors to many African nations in need.
Communism only works on very small countries that can take the massive centralization of the system.

The fact that Cuba is poor is somewhat due to the economic embargo.
Actually the embargo has had no effect on cuba because cuba can still deal with any other country on earth. The US is the only country not doing business with them. You could buy everything the US sells from Mexico via proxy. That is, mexico would buy the goods you want, then sell them to cuba. You would only have to pay perhaps 1~5 for the service.
=====================================
ok, well in practice it didnt work, but i dont know if any of you have read that book that marx(i think it was) wrote
I did read it, and it was crap. I'm an econ major so we got to laugh at his nonsense. His math is very very complicated and makes him sound smarter then he is... he basically tries to change the laws of economics by exploiting failures in our OLD mathematical system. Since then, we've updated our math so that you can't use false loopholes.

Supply and demand are absolute... pay one or the other will collect.

the idea looks amazing but im thinking in thoery its a geniius idea, in practice it sucks. Is this right in your opinions?
I think it's a mix of foolish and offensive really. He thought very little of people. He was also a total bastard in his personal life if that matters to you. He beat his wife...

Seriously, communism is just a head game with ZERO practical application. When they tried it, the system INSTANTLY failed and society reverted to a pervious system that did at least work... totalitarian dictatorship.

There is nothing in communism for you or anyone else but hardship and misery.

[allied56]

damm karma u hate this with a passion, im open to the idea but after reading that im thinkning maybe it isnt a great idea after all

[Blacksand]

I'm fairly sure it was Mao and not Deng who supplied the cat analogy, but I'd have to do research I'm not capable of doing out here to be sure. Could someone check up on that for me?

Not that it mattered, Mao was a complete scumbag as well. Man preferred deflowering very very young girls, we're talking 10-11 year old range.

Allied - the system does not work on a large scale socio-economic standpoint. It's been proven, repeatedly .. time and again. Ideology and The Party does not keep a country running, and in the long run is more dangerous to the populace than anything else. Karma is absolutely correct, the system instantly failed and reverted to a totalitarian state that gave lipservice to the communistic ideal, but was far from the ideal world invisioned by Marx and Engel.

Sure it sounds like a good idea on paper, if your idea of an ideal world is forced sex, no freedom or spare time whatsoever, and a flawed worldview. It's a pipedream, nothing more, even Marx's arguments are fundamentally flawed to begin with. And it wasn't even that corrupt people tried it, it's that the position of leadership corrupts inherently. And leadership in a communist state corrupts even more quickly, again .. refer to Animal Farm or 1984. Even the more recent Equilibrium, which showed us a world where the mere act of feeling emotion was a crime. If you still think it's a good system, you're either VERY easilly influenced or a powermongering sociopath that wants to dominate people. Either way, I'm glad you read the relatively benign Marx instead of Hitler's works. God forbid I have to debate National Socialism and anti-semitism with you. The thought makes me feel dirty.

Off to shower, Blackie.

[MVB]

it's that the position of leadership corrupts inherently

Uh oh, does that mean you think my position of leadership has corrupted me? (onoz)

[Larsson7]

Uh oh, does that mean you think my position of leadership has corrupted me? (onoz)

wtf man... you have accepted all my bribes so far so I would say corruption is evident!

am I rite guyz!?

[MVB]

omgeez

[Blacksand]

Do you really want me to honestly answer this absurdly off topic question?

In short - yes, it has.

Your own freely mentioned arrogance, and near refusal to back down from a point gracefully, admit when your wrong, and general bullishness are all typical hallmarks of men in a position of power. Not to mention the fact that you can be INCREDIBLY overbearing and unwilling to listen at times. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it is said the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Lenin/Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro, they all had great intentions to lead their nation and thereby themselves to glory. The fact that they failed miserably and for the most part will be remembered as monsters by most of the world is irrelevant by this point of the discussion as we are referring to the corrupting influence of power. It's something that comes with the job, wether it's the petty power one wields as a shift leader at the local burger joint, or the power to wipe other nations from the face of the earth. On the bright side, you've done exceedingly well so far, and the prognosis for the immediate future is good. You're aware of your weaknesses and stregnths, and are willing to try and work with and around said attributes. You're corrupt, but not as corrupt as you could be.

[Karmashock]

Allied - the system does not work on a large scale socio-economic standpoint. It's been proven, repeatedly
True. It was proven mathematically that marx was wrong. Google "Complexity theory".

Ideology and The Party does not keep a country running, and in the long run is more dangerous to the populace than anything else.
Actually, this isn't really true... the US is primarily held together a nation and culture WITH ideology. If Americans don't have their ideology of freedom, individual rights, equality before the law, private property, etc... we have nothing. The only real difference between the USSR and the USA is that our system works and is sound on many different social, political, and economic levels... while theirs was a basket case... literally garbage. Even Cuba is trash as its politically a dictatorship even if economically its a communist or socialist state. Communist states are not supposed to run by some elected for life cigar chewing douche.

Karma is absolutely correct, the system instantly failed and reverted to a totalitarian state that gave lipservice to the communistic ideal, but was far from the ideal world invisioned by Marx and Engel.
Most of their theory rested on some nonsense about life changing its very nature in a few generations... they literally thought they could impact basic genetically encoded human behaviors in a matter of a few generations... through and through its founders and supporters were full of shit.

Sure it sounds like a good idea on paper, if your idea of an ideal world is forced sex, no freedom or spare time whatsoever, and a flawed worldview. It's a pipedream, nothing more, even Marx's arguments are fundamentally flawed to begin with. And it wasn't even that corrupt people tried it, it's that the position of leadership corrupts inherently. And leadership in a communist state corrupts even more quickly, again .. refer to Animal Farm or 1984. Even the more recent Equilibrium, which showed us a world where the mere act of feeling emotion was a crime. If you still think it's a good system, you're either VERY easilly influenced or a powermongering sociopath that wants to dominate people. Either way, I'm glad you read the relatively benign Marx instead of Hitler's works. God forbid I have to debate National Socialism and anti-semitism with you. The thought makes me feel dirty.

Off to shower, Blackie.
I would seriously rather die then be subjected to communism. I would live, kill, and die to prevent that. To Americans, communism = slavery. We will NOT submit! >:(

Seriously... MDK to commie scum, Karmashock.

[Blacksand]

With all due respect, when I was referring to Ideology .. in was in the sense of communist ideology I.E. - The Party's Ideology, which was often resorted to in lieu of the actual facts. All apologies for any misunderstanding there, and the fault for that is mine for not stating myself clearly.

As to your final remarks, someone has been watching Red Dawn too often, though I'm very much inclined to agree. An intresting parallel however, would be the current TLSC leadership situation, which basically mirrors the Party system as it was employed in the old USSR, and I could be wrong on that point .. but it's basically how I see it at the present time. Amazingly enough, it works after a fashion.

[Karmashock]

well... I'll just say that you should be more specific when you say "ideology", because the US is certainly held together with it. It's one of the things that made the cold war so interesting. You had to nations that were more ideas then anything else dukeing it out over their world vision. The USA wanted global free trade and democracy... the USSR wanted state control <think of it and they likely wanted to control it>, and hundreds of puppet governments controlled by a bureaucratic aristocracies.

I think we agree on basically everything here… I’m just anal about somethings… so just understand that I’m just squaring the corners here.

[/<yle]

Trotsky got icepicked to death... He actually had some good plans for Russia, then Stalin jacked em.

[JADezimar]

An intresting parallel however, would be the current TLSC leadership situation, which basically mirrors the Party system as it was employed in the old USSR, and I could be wrong on that point .. but it's basically how I see it at the present time.

Agreed o0.

[Karmashock]

Good as in?... less messed up and inhumane? Instead of stalin... Diet stalin?

no... ice picks all round. Preferably the retractable kind they had in the Xfiles... RAWR!

[2biT]

Trotsky got icepicked to death... He actually had some good plans for Russia, then Stalin jacked em.


By Col. Mustard in the Libarary. Ive played this game before.

[MVB]

The difference, Sand, is that I have no intentions of glory for myself or TLSC. Only the desire to make sure ya'll are having fun :)

Additionally, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. never handed off the vast majority of their power to everyone else. A good attempt, but slightly inaccurate nonetheless.

Perhaps as a PS, whatever bullishness, light arrogance, etc. I may have, has always been an aspect of my personality ... if anything, it has lightened in my time here. An opinion is as an opinion is, however, and I am glad you had the candor to express yours openly.

[Karmashock]

We all love our fearless leader! *forces a broud smile and salutes*

[Blacksand]

Meh, once more this thread is getting off topic.
Mike, y'know I love ya buddy.

As for yourself, Karmashock .. there's a reason I don't post often here, mainly because I tend to get caught up in the moment and not completely clarify what it is I'm trying to say, and I'm glad you took the time to point that out. Apologies if I came off sounded like an ass, again I don't post here often and that's mainly because you tend to argue whatever point I had in mind much more quickly and with better language than I could use. So bravo to you.

Anyway, this thread is getting to be about as dead as Lenin, unless someone can come up with a serious and intelligent rebuttal to the anti-communist arguments so the discussion can continue. Any takers?

[Karmashock]

Don't go away blacksand! :(

communism is the shizzel!

[Blacksand]

Meh, I might stick around. I don't post in this area nearly often enough. Remember, I'm taking valuable time from my day's work fixing electronics to post here too, mrawr.

[MVB]

I basically think Communism is a stupid concept; someone with the political savvy to take over a country fell in love with it. End of story, in my book.
No reason to lock this, but the discussion is over for me personally. I think only people ignorant of the real details behind it can actually find it practical and doable..

[JADezimar]

I WANT COMMUNISMS!


o0 ?

[JADezimar]

zzzzzzz. I have no access to the shotgun, sigh* oh my emporers sword...... If you know what i mean ? :p

[Burned]

There has never been and problably never will be a communist country.First of all.In communists countries there isnt a government/state.The ppl would rule themselves.Thats why its impossible for a country to be communist.

Those countries ur talking about aint communists and have never been so.They just said that to get in power and get richer, it is those ppl that make communism look so bad and evil.

[Karmashock]

Where did you learn this? Have you read his work? Have you studied the early histories of these countries? Do you know what those people wrote and believed?

I just want you to tighten the knot before I let the floor drop out from underneath you. ;)

*hang a sign "dancing on air: admission free"*

[Burned]

Does it really matters what they believed?Of course i know what im talking about, there hasnt been in the modern world a real communist country, and plz dint tell me Russia and China were comunists, they ¨tried¨ to be communist

[Karmashock]

just like I can try and fly by doing nothing more then flapping my arms...

Communist theory is unsound economically, politicially, and culturally. It is an ideology based society with nothing to keep it going but words. The whole basis behind the words... the math... the theory... it's all bunk.

When you say one has never been... do you mean that in the way that dragons have never been? Or do you mean that it could be done if people were just more sensible about things?


Communism is a fantasy that the mad and misinformed try to push on people at the butt of a gun... period.

[Burned]

In the first way.

[Karmashock]

forgive me if I'm a bit emotional with you... but the communists were the mortal enemy of my people for most of this century.

Am I to understand it that you think a communist society would be a 'good' thing... or what?

[Dibujante]

Good god, Blackie, with people spreading such lies it's impossible not to hate Communists.
Stalin was not communist, neither was his government. We can start with many points, but let's look at property rights. The Soviet Union collectivized all property under state supervision, yes? Further, it established that the state was the owner of all property, yes? These are essentials to the soviet system.
However, communism demands that the means of production be turned over to the producers. This means that the workers running a factory own the factory, the farmers working a field own the field, etc. State collectivization is the antithesis to communist doctrine. In this way, USSR was not communist.
Abolition of religion has nothing in particular to do with Communism. Marx was anti-religious, and he publicly decried religion. According to him, humanity would be better off to abolish it, but it was not a part of the communist doctrine, it was part of a strange Marx-worship that should not be equated with communism.
The "community of women" argument is utter and complete bullshit. The manifesto explicitly states that it abolishes the system of marriage by which a woman becomes the property of a man. That is very far from a community of women. I could find no references to red army defloration, however I do know that in the Czech campaign of 1969 the Red Army's official orders were to abstain from sex.
The "community of women" argument came up because the bourgeois accused the abolition of the property-based conception of women as the abolition of laws requiring that women not sleep with whoever they choose. It's another one of the crappy bourgeois "communists drink baby blood" arguments that holds no water. Abolition of humans as property doesn't mean advocation of women as property, that is a logical fallacy. Communism specifically decries prostitution as a system of oppressing women.
The Gulag is also anti-communist. Nothing in the Communist doctrine says anything about absolutism. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" has not been translated from 19th century English, when it meant "the ability of the people to, through popular vote, establish any government they please." That is the idea of Popular Sovereignty, and is the "basis" of American Democracy, although the Constitution does not allow such actions, making homage to Popular Sovereignty mere lip service in America.
America has been opposed to Communism because America has always valued the interests of "business" which coincide with the interests of the wealthy. State-enforced Atheism was just a bogeyman to try to convince Americans to join the commie-hating crusade. Then, of course, myths like defloration or community of women come up, simply because America would never allow communists to defend themselves from slander and libel, seeing as how Communism has been illegal in the U.S. since the 1919 and 1920 Supreme Court cases Abram v. US and Schenk v. US.
That's about it. Now, back to accusing communists of killing JFK, drinking baby-blood and sodomizing dogs!
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

Good god, Blackie, with people spreading such lies it's impossible not to hate Communists.
Stalin was not communist, neither was his government. We can start with many points, but let's look at property rights. The Soviet Union collectivized all property under state supervision, yes? Further, it established that the state was the owner of all property, yes? These are essentials to the soviet system.
However, communism demands that the means of production be turned over to the producers. This means that the workers running a factory own the factory, the farmers working a field own the field, etc. State collectivization is the antithesis to communist doctrine. In this way, USSR was not communist.
How would you turn it over to the workers? Seriously... how?

Communism had it's chance and it failed... everyone is over it but a few sad holdouts.
Abolition of religion has nothing in particular to do with Communism. Marx was anti-religious, and he publicly decried religion. According to him, humanity would be better off to abolish it, but it was not a part of the communist doctrine, it was part of a strange Marx-worship that should not be equated with communism.
The USSR was an ideological society. So is the US. The American people worship the founders as much if not more then the soviets worshiped marx, lenin and the rest. The difference is that one group of people is worthy of that worship and one is not... The founders of the USA are worthy.


The "community of women" argument is utter and complete bullshit. The manifesto explicitly states that it abolishes the system of marriage by which a woman becomes the property of a man. That is very far from a community of women. I could find no references to red army defloration, however I do know that in the Czech campaign of 1969 the Red Army's official orders were to abstain from sex.
The "community of women" argument came up because the bourgeois accused the abolition of the property-based conception of women as the abolition of laws requiring that women not sleep with whoever they choose. It's another one of the crappy bourgeois "communists drink baby blood" arguments that holds no water. Abolition of humans as property doesn't mean advocation of women as property, that is a logical fallacy. Communism specifically decries prostitution as a system of oppressing women.
I've actually, never heard anything about women and communism beyond the fact that they used women in the army more then we did.



The Bourgeois comment is going to cost you though. It shows class hatred at the very least. That brands you as some kind of radical... I don't know what kind yet, but likely some Trotskite tool.


The Gulag is also anti-communist. Nothing in the Communist doctrine says anything about absolutism. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" has not been translated from 19th century English, when it meant "the ability of the people to, through popular vote, establish any government they please." That is the idea of Popular Sovereignty, and is the "basis" of American Democracy, although the Constitution does not allow such actions, making homage to Popular Sovereignty mere lip service in America.
We have a republic that is freer then any nation on earth.

You're quickly skipping into the kook territory.
America has been opposed to Communism because America has always valued the interests of "business" which coincide with the interests of the wealthy. State-enforced Atheism was just a bogeyman to try to convince Americans to join the commie-hating crusade. Then, of course, myths like defloration or community of women come up, simply because America would never allow communists to defend themselves from slander and libel, seeing as how Communism has been illegal in the U.S. since the 1919 and 1920 Supreme Court cases Abram v. US and Schenk v. US.
That's about it. Now, back to accusing communists of killing JFK, drinking baby-blood and sodomizing dogs!
Regards,
Dibujante
ok... you're an idiot.

We only got bothered by communism in the first part of the century when foreign born communist douches started planting bombs in our cities demanding we change to a system that was alien and against our creed.

We overcame much of that while fighting WWII as the Russians were our friends.

Then they pissed that away by trying to take over the world.... they professed the world take over of communism.


Hasn't happened has it? Workers of the world? Pathetic.

Something you have to realize, is that the capitalists never started or wanted a fight. They were challenged… they were threatened… and so they responded by using their SUPERIOR economic control and SUPERIOR technological prowess to cut off and neutralize the soviet threat. The soviets and other would be communist upstarts never had a chance.

If you want to try that bs again, two things.
One: don’t call yourself communist… that name is toxic.
Two: Don’t challenge us… Not unless you want to fight.

Learn or repeat the mistake, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

Ouch. The U.S. invaded Russia in 1919 in order to keep a group who claimed to be communist (but didn't turn out to be so) down, so it did, in fact, start the fight.
Also, the USSR was never communist. Also, I'm not entering "kook" territory. Read the damn Constitution, man! Is there a clause that says that a referendum can abolish the existing government and establish a new one? NO! That makes the U.S. not a nation based on popular sovereignty. That may be a good, that may be bad, but don't assign attributes to the U.S. that it doesn't possess.
America does not worship the founders. If they did, women would still be property and they'd have slaves. What Constitutional scholars do is analyze the intent of the founders to determine what the constitution intended. There's a very big distinction.
A little history will show you that who is the aggressor is a much more complicated issue. The U.S. was the aggressor in Afghanistan before the Soviets arrived, for example. The U.S. was the aggressor in Vietnam, too, when they cancelled the democratic Vietnamese process. The U.S. was the aggressor in Guatemala, Venezuela and Cuba, as well. You can't throw the blame on the Soviets (who you cannot prove to be communist).
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

Ouch. The U.S. invaded Russia in 1919 in order to keep a group who claimed to be communist (but didn't turn out to be so) down, so it did, in fact, start the fight.
Cite a link... you're offically a kook until you prove this one.


Sounds like you were brainwashed... tragic...

[Dibujante]

http://www.historywiz.com/invasionrussia.htm
Who's brainwashed now?
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

Context:
A little known episode in American history is the landing of American troops in Russia to fight the communists. The United States, along with Canada, Great Britain, France, and Japan became entangled in the civil war which followed the Bolshevik revolution. It was World War I and the Soviet government had negotiated a peace treaty with Germany removing them from the war. America and its allies joined with the White Russians, who promised to stay in the war, to fight the Red Army.


I think the soviets allying with the Germans was justification enough.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

Riiight. The Soviets allying with the then-defeated Germans. On top of that, 100,000 Russian troops died on the Eastern front before the Russians retreated. Nice allies, right?
Regards,
Dibujante

[Karmashock]

You're making it too easy douche... from your own fucking source:
The Allies feared that the major ports in northwest Russia--Murmansk and Archangel--would fall to Germany after Russia left the war. Millions of dollars of war supplies, mostly sent from the United States to Russia while they were still in the war, were stored in the docks and warehouses of Archangel.

[Dibujante]

Which explains why U.S. troops held the Volga....and took a side in the civil war. If they had wanted to keep those warehouses safe they wouldn't have engaged themselves in bitter fighting against "Red Russians."

[Karmashock]

hmm... you're not reading... Let me repeat the first quote...
A little known episode in American history is the landing of American troops in Russia to fight the communists. The United States, along with Canada, Great Britain, France, and Japan became entangled in the civil war which followed the Bolshevik revolution. It was World War I and the Soviet government had negotiated a peace treaty with Germany removing them from the war. America and its allies joined with the White Russians, who promised to stay in the war, to fight the Red Army.

[JADezimar]

America does not worship the founders. If they did, women would still be property and they'd have slaves. What Constitutional scholars do is analyze the intent of the founders to determine what the constitution intended

I dont ever remember Slavery or Women being property ever being Incorporated in the constitution at all. you want to mess up how many more facts. Im sure youve got quite a few wrong. All I have to do is go look. But my understanding the simplification of the term communisms = trying to make all the people economically equal. Where as the us Society does not. The stalin russia was definitely no where near the US Capitilists government so what do you call it, debujante? Russia obviously saw this type of government not work out so theyve changed. Why do people want communism? I could c a why a lazy person like me that doesnt want to work at something he hates and get payed shit would want it. But why would any normal person ?

[Karmashock]

I missed that line...

Americans most certainly do worship the founders. And slavery doesn't change that... most of the founders weren't too hot on it anyway... they did it... but it was more of the times then of the philosophy.

To this day their words kill opposition to old satutes in a way that only the invocation of a god can in religion.

We are a creed based society... and that creed, is theirs.