Liberals better be glad they don't live in their dream home, Russia

Tom Petty · Sep 13, 2007

Yawn said:

andyouare? said:

Yawn said:

andyouare? said:

Yawn said:

andyouare? said:

Yawn,

I have a question for you: In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
Click to expand...

Ace: He can't. Our system focuses on gridlock through the balance of powers.

Andy:
If that ain't a fluffy caricature of "Communists are our friends," I've never seen a caricature.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Communism is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, "claiming" to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. (But we all know how well that worked now, don't we?

The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat, which was not limited to political takeover but oppression and even elimination of those who oppose it.

Much more direct. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to share.
Click to expand...

Yawn, I know that you are horrified at our intending to do away with private property.

But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
Click to expand...

Andy: If you're a Christian, you could make the case that Acts 2:42-47 and the design of the early church within those verses bled of socialism. So socialism and Christianity should go together, right? Or is it the other way - as Lenin said: religion is the opiate of the people?

And if you're not a Christian, find a good Leninist-based culture to move to. They already have what you want.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

But can't I be a Christian and believe in a simple 10-point plan toward a better society:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

EDIT:

11. Free Wi-Fi and HBO. (Thanks Ace, I almost forgot.)
Click to expand...

In the most literal sense, your household should never be labeled "public property". It would give the public access, again in a literal sense.

And I wouldn't want Petty in my house. Talk about scaring the hell out of the kids...
Click to expand...

another quality post we all look forward to reading. thanks.

Tom Petty · Sep 13, 2007

Yawn said:

crimsonace said:

Time for the resident Adam Smith-ite capitalist to step in

andyouare? said:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Click to expand...

Uh, OK. So I don't own the property that I've worked for, and I have to live in an apartment/home that the government allows me to use, puts conditions on its use, and can kick me out of anytime.

And, if we can improve on the model of previous Communist systems, maybe they'll be able to get running water above the 4th floor!

andyouare? said:

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Click to expand...

Last time that was tried in America, it begat the worst recession of the last 70 years. The current 25-year run of prosperity came after that idea was blasted for a flatter tax structure.

andyouare? said:

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Click to expand...

Why? Where would the $$ I spent an entire life working for go -- to the government, or redistributed to the poor with 85% taken by some bureaucrat who "processes" the inheritance? Or is this the old Leninist myth that "rich people" didn't actually earn their money, but they either stole it or inherited it. More than 90% of the millionares in the U.S. are first-generation millionaires -- they earned their money, instead of inheriting it. Not only that, but if I have earned that cash, I'd like to be able to pass it on to my children (as well as the property that, under your system, I wouldn't be allowed to own.

andyouare? said:

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
Click to expand...

What would this accomplish? My guess is, if we do that, the whole notion of "freedom of the press" would be gone, and the centralized means of communication would involve journalism worthy of Pravda or Saddam Hussein's press agent. Sign me up! The state either owns or regulates nearly every form of transportation here anyway, so I'm not sure how that would change. All roads are state-owned, virtually all airports are, and the railroads/airlines are very, very heavily regulated (and nearly all passenger rail routes -- both commuter and long-distance -- are government-owned).

andyouare? said:

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Click to expand...

Uh, OK. State-run factories sound good, but the notion that everything will be better for the workers if profit is removed from the equation is fallacious at best. The lack of a profit motive (and the ability to spend the public's resources) breeds inefficiency. Look at schools, a government beast -- gobs of money is tied up in administration, while classroom teachers are often poorly-paid and highly regulated. Not only that, but state-run factories breed inefficiency -- the state's needs trump the public's. We can go back to the old USSR, where the limited resources were often diverted toward building up the Soviet military, but consumer goods were lacking -- there were lines for bread, jeans were a coveted item, there were long waiting lists for 2-cylinder cars (heck, in Cuba, they're still driving 1950s gas-guzzlers), and cheap transistor radios were luxury items. Capitalism finds the public's need and adjusts to fill it. Communism finds the state's need and says "screw the consumer."

The alleged environmental benefits are fallacious, too. Anyone want to check out the environmental record of the Communist USSR and, more recently, China?

andyouare? said:

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Click to expand...

That worked so well in China that collectivization was pretty much abandoned. It worked so well in the Soviet Union that farmers would rather burn their grain than to turn it over to a collective. This sounds good, but breeds inefficiency -- seriously, you're going to get paid the same amount whether you're a farmer producing 10 bushels of corn or 100 bushels. So, why put out 10 bushels? Especially if there's someone else in your work collective that is able to do the work? We have lazy people in our capitalist system that are masters at getting others to do their work. In a communist system, the same happens, especially when there is no motive to work. There's an old Soviet proverb: "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."

andyouare? said:

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.
Click to expand...

Is this 2007 or 1887? We've had free public education available for all children for nearly a century -- and required in many states until age 18. Child factory labor has been largely outlawed since the Teddy Roosevelt administration.
Click to expand...

Don't you know, man, that liberals have only given lipservice to freedom of speech and press except in cases where it steps on their toes and becomes more reality than fantasy?
Click to expand...

Fenian_Bastard · Dec 15, 2014

HI!
It's great here in Novosibirsk!
My room marked with an "X"!
Wish you guys were here!

andyouare? · Sep 13, 2007

Yawn said:

andyouare? said:

Yawn said:

andyouare? said:

Yawn said:

andyouare? said:

Yawn,

I have a question for you: In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
Click to expand...

Ace: He can't. Our system focuses on gridlock through the balance of powers.

Andy:
If that ain't a fluffy caricature of "Communists are our friends," I've never seen a caricature.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Communism is a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, "claiming" to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. (But we all know how well that worked now, don't we?

The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat, which was not limited to political takeover but oppression and even elimination of those who oppose it.

Much more direct. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to share.
Click to expand...

Yawn, I know that you are horrified at our intending to do away with private property.

But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
Click to expand...

Andy: If you're a Christian, you could make the case that Acts 2:42-47 and the design of the early church within those verses bled of socialism. So socialism and Christianity should go together, right? Or is it the other way - as Lenin said: religion is the opiate of the people?

And if you're not a Christian, find a good Leninist-based culture to move to. They already have what you want.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

But can't I be a Christian and believe in a simple 10-point plan toward a better society:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

EDIT:

11. Free Wi-Fi and HBO. (Thanks Ace, I almost forgot.)
Click to expand...

In the most literal sense, your household should never be labeled "public property". It would give the public access, again in a literal sense.

And I wouldn't want Petty in my house. Talk about scaring the hell out of the kids...
Click to expand...

No retort for No. 11: Free Wi-Fi and HBO?

Commies 1, Dirty Capitalistic Pigs 0.

Fenian_Bastard · Sep 13, 2007

This Yawn/anyouare colloquy is like watching a blind man catch a chicken.

Ace · Dec 15, 2014

Fenian_Bastard said:

HI!
It's great here in Novosibirsk!
My room marked with an "X"!
Wish you guys were here!

Click to expand...

Fen,

Nice digs. Who does your landscaping?

Fenian_Bastard · Dec 15, 2014

Ace said:

Fenian_Bastard said:

HI!
It's great here in Novosibirsk!
My room marked with an "X"!
Wish you guys were here!

Click to expand...

Fen,

Nice digs. Who does your landscaping?
Click to expand...

The People, of course.

Yawn · Sep 13, 2007

Like I said, if you like it so much, move to Russia. You don't have to sell a home obviously, since you don't believe in private property. Or are you like another liberal, John Edwards, talking about two Americas from the comfort of his gated community?

Chi City 81 · Sep 13, 2007

Yawn said:

Like I said, if you like it so much, move to Russia. You don't have to sell a home obviously, since you don't believe in private property. Or are you like another liberal, John Edwards, talking about two Americas from the comfort of his gated community?
Click to expand...

I think Fenian is too busy focusing on the wire reports from Iraq...from a safe spot in Amman.

Fenian_Bastard · Sep 13, 2007

I'm wrong.
It's like watching a blind chimp try to swat a fky with a hockey stick.

Yawn · Sep 13, 2007

And Fenian would, with the focus of undermining the troops since to do so would be to keep the pressure on his favorite president. No way, no way in hell, that man as a journalist ever hides his biases. We'd stand a better chance of professional sports coming clean of steroids.

Yawn · Sep 13, 2007

Fenian_Bastard said:

I'm wrong.
It's like watching a blind chimp try to swat a fky with a hockey stick.
Click to expand...

Spelling.com for FenPhen.
fky? Can't find it in the directory of insects.

Log in or Sign up

Liberals better be glad they don't live in their dream home, Russia

Tom Petty Guest

Tom Petty Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

andyouare? Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Ace Well-Known Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Yawn New Member

Chi City 81 Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Yawn New Member

Yawn New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Liberals better be glad they don't live in their dream home, Russia

Tom Petty Guest

Tom Petty Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

andyouare? Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Ace Well-Known Member

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Yawn New Member

Chi City 81 Guest

Fenian_Bastard Guest

Yawn New Member

Yawn New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches