Communist is the worst idea ever invented and yet it is believed in by millions

The basic idea is not about property calling it theft or not self made. The basic idea is " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". This is the same basic idea behind slavery which is why it is no coincidence that every communist nation is a slave state.
They got it from the Bible.
That is not a defense of slavery, nor does it lend legitamacy to an evil idea.

But no they did not. There is no such scripture.
Slavery is not about free-market Capitalism.

Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about any "gospel Truth". Appeals to ignorance is all right-wingers are best at.

All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. ... Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.[25]

— Acts 2:44–45, Acts 4:32–35
Please point out where the Roman government mandated this sharing.

Again: Communism can work only in small communities and strictly voluntarily.
Read some history of the Roman Empire.

Only the Religious seem to be able to make it work. Not enough morals to go around among the secular laity?
Face it, kid. You fucked up. There is no Biblical justification for the tyranny you want.
If you had enough reading comprehension you would understand it take morals for that not right-wing fantasy.
Morals to steal from people?

You do know words have meanings, right? You don't get to make up new ones?
Only right-wingers allege that. The rest of us know that the social power to Tax is delegated to our representatives to Government.
"Social power".

No such thing.

But it's HILARIOUS you believe you get to make up definitions! How insanely intellectually bankrupt! :auiqs.jpg:
The ignorance of the right-wing is astounding.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It is accomplished via the social-ism of Government.
Government is not socialism.

Socialism is a form of government which always fails.

That is fact in your face which has been proven time again but being a dishonest and immature right winger you still cling to a proven fallacy
 
Why do Progressives never have a bad word to say about Communism or mankind's most prolific mass murders, all Communists?

Because communism has never killed anyone.
Stalin was not a communist, but a capitalist bank robber, who infiltrated the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists, killed them all, took over, and implemented state capitalism instead.

Look at the characteristics. Communism is collaborative, cooperative, communal, and the way humans normally treat each other in small social groups like families, clubs, tribes, etc.
Those who think communism implies a large centralized state, simply do not know anything about communism.
And what Stalin implemented was not at all collaborative, cooperative, communal, or voluntary.
It was forced, state, capitalism, with purely a profit motive for the ruling elite.
Communism has killed un toldf tens of millions.

Stalin was a communist. He was not a capitalist,

Communism is totalitarian and never cooperative or communial or cllobaorative,

It is you who grapss nothing about communism and is ignorant of it.

Stalin wasn't really a Communist. Do you think Stalin gave a damn about Communism at all? What did Stalin do that was either Communist or pushing for Communism?
He was a communist through and through. he etablished the comintern specifically for the purpose of spreading communism world wide just as Marx required communism to work. He forced the entire nation to work and live in accordance with his interpretation of Marx which is precisely what the dictatorship of the proletariate is meant to do.

Well, the Comintern was established in 1919 before Stalin was a major force. Stalin was on the delegate's list, but it's not known if he actually went.

Stalin was one of those guys who'd use the system he was in in order to gain the power he wanted. Nothing seems to suggest he was a Communist.

Even the early Communists in Russia thought he might be an agent provocateur.
Everything proves he was a communist inclluding his own admission.

Yeah, only if you see things in simple.
 
The basic idea is not about property calling it theft or not self made. The basic idea is " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". This is the same basic idea behind slavery which is why it is no coincidence that every communist nation is a slave state.
They got it from the Bible.
That is not a defense of slavery, nor does it lend legitamacy to an evil idea.

But no they did not. There is no such scripture.
Slavery is not about free-market Capitalism.

Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about any "gospel Truth". Appeals to ignorance is all right-wingers are best at.

All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. ... Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.[25]

— Acts 2:44–45, Acts 4:32–35
Please point out where the Roman government mandated this sharing.

Again: Communism can work only in small communities and strictly voluntarily.
Read some history of the Roman Empire.

Only the Religious seem to be able to make it work. Not enough morals to go around among the secular laity?
Face it, kid. You fucked up. There is no Biblical justification for the tyranny you want.
If you had enough reading comprehension you would understand it take morals for that not right-wing fantasy.
Morals to steal from people?

You do know words have meanings, right? You don't get to make up new ones?
Only right-wingers allege that. The rest of us know that the social power to Tax is delegated to our representatives to Government.
"Social power".

No such thing.

But it's HILARIOUS you believe you get to make up definitions! How insanely intellectually bankrupt! :auiqs.jpg:
The ignorance of the right-wing is astounding.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It is accomplished via the social-ism of Government.
Government is not socialism.

Socialism is a form of government which always fails.

That is fact in your face which has been proven time again but being a dishonest and immature right winger you still cling to a proven fallacy

It doesn't always fail at all. There have been a few examples of Socialism and they have failed because they struggled to deal with some of the fundamentals. I'm not a Socialist, but the doesn't mean it can't work.

People would say Capitalism has always failed too. Look at 2008.
 

Stalin was a communist. He was not a capitalist,

What's indeed not a fact but an interesting question. What is the role of party bigwigs in a "part"-y which controls everyone and everything and which is totalitarian under control of only one Trump? How fits this with any theory at all?

The basic idea of communism "property is theft" - better to say "property is not self-made" - is for sure not really wrong in case of some few hundred families in the world. But this some few hundred families own more than 90% of everything.

I fear whether someone likes this or not: We will need a new system of economy in the world. 100-150 years ago most people were farmers and were able to produce everything - with hard work - what they needed. In the world today it is impossible to survive without money. And it becomes more and more diffcult not to become a slave of others and to seed an own money tree, so no one has to die on hunger, because he is able to buy food.
The role of one leader is precisely what is called for in communism as it develops. Marx clearly stated that a dictagtorship is required for a while.

No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me.
The dictatorship of the proletariate does not have to be limited to dictatorship by one person but that is what it refers to.

Dictatorship is dictatorship whether or not one hangs a qualifier on it or not.
You answered too fast and too flat.
Here again what I wrote:

-----
No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me. Nevertheless it is far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

By the way - do you know the text of the Commie anthem "Die Internationale". When the socialist state GDR still existed I wondered myselve often about why the dictators of this tyranny did not arrest everyone who sang this song.


-----

Dictatorship of the proletariate is indeed the dictatorship of one person.

That's without logic.
Any dictatorship could be more than one person such as a regime or junta but in general it is one person and what marx meant which is why Stalion was a communist following the plan even if slightly tweaked.

Short: I am not a Commie and Capitalism means also nothing to me. No idea what you try to criticize. It is nevertheless still far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

It is perfectly logical.


It is not. But from my point of view it makes not any sense to try to explain to you now why, because it's totally unimportant.

One dictator can easily grow or emerge out of the proletariate class.

Wealth and the making of wealth has nothing to do with justice and wealth is not given.

Inequality of wealth and income is in fact perfectly just and harms NO ONE.

no comment
 
The basic idea is not about property calling it theft or not self made. The basic idea is " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". This is the same basic idea behind slavery which is why it is no coincidence that every communist nation is a slave state.
They got it from the Bible.
That is not a defense of slavery, nor does it lend legitamacy to an evil idea.

But no they did not. There is no such scripture.
Slavery is not about free-market Capitalism.

Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about any "gospel Truth". Appeals to ignorance is all right-wingers are best at.

All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. ... Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.[25]

— Acts 2:44–45, Acts 4:32–35
Please point out where the Roman government mandated this sharing.

Again: Communism can work only in small communities and strictly voluntarily.
Read some history of the Roman Empire.

Only the Religious seem to be able to make it work. Not enough morals to go around among the secular laity?
Face it, kid. You fucked up. There is no Biblical justification for the tyranny you want.
If you had enough reading comprehension you would understand it take morals for that not right-wing fantasy.
Morals to steal from people?

You do know words have meanings, right? You don't get to make up new ones?
Only right-wingers allege that. The rest of us know that the social power to Tax is delegated to our representatives to Government.
"Social power".

No such thing.

But it's HILARIOUS you believe you get to make up definitions! How insanely intellectually bankrupt! :auiqs.jpg:
The ignorance of the right-wing is astounding.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It is accomplished via the social-ism of Government.
Government is not socialism.

Socialism is a form of government which always fails.

That is fact in your face which has been proven time again but being a dishonest and immature right winger you still cling to a proven fallacy

It doesn't always fail at all. There have been a few examples of Socialism and they have failed because they struggled to deal with some of the fundamentals. I'm not a Socialist, but the doesn't mean it can't work.

People would say Capitalism has always failed too. Look at 2008.
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.
 
Why do Progressives never have a bad word to say about Communism or mankind's most prolific mass murders, all Communists?

Because communism has never killed anyone.
Stalin was not a communist, but a capitalist bank robber, who infiltrated the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists, killed them all, took over, and implemented state capitalism instead.

Look at the characteristics. Communism is collaborative, cooperative, communal, and the way humans normally treat each other in small social groups like families, clubs, tribes, etc.
Those who think communism implies a large centralized state, simply do not know anything about communism.
And what Stalin implemented was not at all collaborative, cooperative, communal, or voluntary.
It was forced, state, capitalism, with purely a profit motive for the ruling elite.
Communism has killed un toldf tens of millions.

Stalin was a communist. He was not a capitalist,

Communism is totalitarian and never cooperative or communial or cllobaorative,

It is you who grapss nothing about communism and is ignorant of it.

Stalin wasn't really a Communist. Do you think Stalin gave a damn about Communism at all? What did Stalin do that was either Communist or pushing for Communism?
He was a communist through and through. he etablished the comintern specifically for the purpose of spreading communism world wide just as Marx required communism to work. He forced the entire nation to work and live in accordance with his interpretation of Marx which is precisely what the dictatorship of the proletariate is meant to do.

Well, the Comintern was established in 1919 before Stalin was a major force. Stalin was on the delegate's list, but it's not known if he actually went.

Stalin was one of those guys who'd use the system he was in in order to gain the power he wanted. Nothing seems to suggest he was a Communist.

Even the early Communists in Russia thought he might be an agent provocateur.
Everything proves he was a communist inclluding his own admission.

Yeah, only if you see things in simple.
You mean seeing things clearly without denial
 

Stalin was a communist. He was not a capitalist,

What's indeed not a fact but an interesting question. What is the role of party bigwigs in a "part"-y which controls everyone and everything and which is totalitarian under control of only one Trump? How fits this with any theory at all?

The basic idea of communism "property is theft" - better to say "property is not self-made" - is for sure not really wrong in case of some few hundred families in the world. But this some few hundred families own more than 90% of everything.

I fear whether someone likes this or not: We will need a new system of economy in the world. 100-150 years ago most people were farmers and were able to produce everything - with hard work - what they needed. In the world today it is impossible to survive without money. And it becomes more and more diffcult not to become a slave of others and to seed an own money tree, so no one has to die on hunger, because he is able to buy food.
The role of one leader is precisely what is called for in communism as it develops. Marx clearly stated that a dictagtorship is required for a while.

No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me.
The dictatorship of the proletariate does not have to be limited to dictatorship by one person but that is what it refers to.

Dictatorship is dictatorship whether or not one hangs a qualifier on it or not.
You answered too fast and too flat.
Here again what I wrote:

-----
No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me. Nevertheless it is far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

By the way - do you know the text of the Commie anthem "Die Internationale". When the socialist state GDR still existed I wondered myselve often about why the dictators of this tyranny did not arrest everyone who sang this song.


-----

Dictatorship of the proletariate is indeed the dictatorship of one person.

That's without logic.
Any dictatorship could be more than one person such as a regime or junta but in general it is one person and what marx meant which is why Stalion was a communist following the plan even if slightly tweaked.

Short: I am not a Commie and Capitalism means also nothing to me. No idea what you try to criticize. It is nevertheless still far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

It is perfectly logical.


It is not. But from my point of view it makes not any sense to try to explain to you now why, because it's totally unimportant.

One dictator can easily grow or emerge out of the proletariate class.

Wealth and the making of wealth has nothing to do with justice and wealth is not given.

Inequality of wealth and income is in fact perfectly just and harms NO ONE.

no comment

It is perfectly logical unlerss of course one cannoty grasp what logic means.
 


Stalin was a communist. He was not a capitalist,

What's indeed not a fact but an interesting question. What is the role of party bigwigs in a "part"-y which controls everyone and everything and which is totalitarian under control of only one Trump? How fits this with any theory at all?

The basic idea of communism "property is theft" - better to say "property is not self-made" - is for sure not really wrong in case of some few hundred families in the world. But this some few hundred families own more than 90% of everything.

I fear whether someone likes this or not: We will need a new system of economy in the world. 100-150 years ago most people were farmers and were able to produce everything - with hard work - what they needed. In the world today it is impossible to survive without money. And it becomes more and more diffcult not to become a slave of others and to seed an own money tree, so no one has to die on hunger, because he is able to buy food.
The role of one leader is precisely what is called for in communism as it develops. Marx clearly stated that a dictagtorship is required for a while.

No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me.
The dictatorship of the proletariate does not have to be limited to dictatorship by one person but that is what it refers to.

Dictatorship is dictatorship whether or not one hangs a qualifier on it or not.
You answered too fast and too flat.
Here again what I wrote:

-----
No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me. Nevertheless it is far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

By the way - do you know the text of the Commie anthem "Die Internationale". When the socialist state GDR still existed I wondered myselve often about why the dictators of this tyranny did not arrest everyone who sang this song.


-----

Dictatorship of the proletariate is indeed the dictatorship of one person.

That's without logic.
Any dictatorship could be more than one person such as a regime or junta but in general it is one person and what marx meant which is why Stalion was a communist following the plan even if slightly tweaked.

Short: I am not a Commie and Capitalism means also nothing to me. No idea what you try to criticize. It is nevertheless still far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

It is perfectly logical.


It is not. But from my point of view it makes not any sense to try to explain to you now why, because it's totally unimportant.

One dictator can easily grow or emerge out of the proletariate class.

Wealth and the making of wealth has nothing to do with justice and wealth is not given.

Inequality of wealth and income is in fact perfectly just and harms NO ONE.

no comment

It is perfectly logical unlerss of course one cannoty grasp what logic means.

no comment
... or very short: Think about the dictatorship of Monday over Sunday.
 


Stalin was a communist. He was not a capitalist,

What's indeed not a fact but an interesting question. What is the role of party bigwigs in a "part"-y which controls everyone and everything and which is totalitarian under control of only one Trump? How fits this with any theory at all?

The basic idea of communism "property is theft" - better to say "property is not self-made" - is for sure not really wrong in case of some few hundred families in the world. But this some few hundred families own more than 90% of everything.

I fear whether someone likes this or not: We will need a new system of economy in the world. 100-150 years ago most people were farmers and were able to produce everything - with hard work - what they needed. In the world today it is impossible to survive without money. And it becomes more and more diffcult not to become a slave of others and to seed an own money tree, so no one has to die on hunger, because he is able to buy food.
The role of one leader is precisely what is called for in communism as it develops. Marx clearly stated that a dictagtorship is required for a while.

No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me.
The dictatorship of the proletariate does not have to be limited to dictatorship by one person but that is what it refers to.

Dictatorship is dictatorship whether or not one hangs a qualifier on it or not.
You answered too fast and too flat.
Here again what I wrote:

-----
No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me. Nevertheless it is far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

By the way - do you know the text of the Commie anthem "Die Internationale". When the socialist state GDR still existed I wondered myselve often about why the dictators of this tyranny did not arrest everyone who sang this song.


-----

Dictatorship of the proletariate is indeed the dictatorship of one person.

That's without logic.
Any dictatorship could be more than one person such as a regime or junta but in general it is one person and what marx meant which is why Stalion was a communist following the plan even if slightly tweaked.

Short: I am not a Commie and Capitalism means also nothing to me. No idea what you try to criticize. It is nevertheless still far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

It is perfectly logical.


It is not. But from my point of view it makes not any sense to try to explain to you now why, because it's totally unimportant.

One dictator can easily grow or emerge out of the proletariate class.

Wealth and the making of wealth has nothing to do with justice and wealth is not given.

Inequality of wealth and income is in fact perfectly just and harms NO ONE.

no comment

It is perfectly logical unlerss of course one cannoty grasp what logic means.

no comment
... or very short: Think about the dictatorship of Monday over Sunday.

He was not writing metaphoriccally he was referring to the necessity and requirement of a dictatorship.

All communist dictators are precisely what marx required
 
The basic idea is not about property calling it theft or not self made. The basic idea is " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". This is the same basic idea behind slavery which is why it is no coincidence that every communist nation is a slave state.
They got it from the Bible.
That is not a defense of slavery, nor does it lend legitamacy to an evil idea.

But no they did not. There is no such scripture.
Slavery is not about free-market Capitalism.

Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about any "gospel Truth". Appeals to ignorance is all right-wingers are best at.

All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. ... Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.[25]

— Acts 2:44–45, Acts 4:32–35
Please point out where the Roman government mandated this sharing.

Again: Communism can work only in small communities and strictly voluntarily.
Read some history of the Roman Empire.

Only the Religious seem to be able to make it work. Not enough morals to go around among the secular laity?
Face it, kid. You fucked up. There is no Biblical justification for the tyranny you want.
If you had enough reading comprehension you would understand it take morals for that not right-wing fantasy.
Morals to steal from people?

You do know words have meanings, right? You don't get to make up new ones?
Only right-wingers allege that. The rest of us know that the social power to Tax is delegated to our representatives to Government.
"Social power".

No such thing.

But it's HILARIOUS you believe you get to make up definitions! How insanely intellectually bankrupt! :auiqs.jpg:
The ignorance of the right-wing is astounding.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It is accomplished via the social-ism of Government.
Government is not socialism.

Socialism is a form of government which always fails.

That is fact in your face which has been proven time again but being a dishonest and immature right winger you still cling to a proven fallacy

It doesn't always fail at all. There have been a few examples of Socialism and they have failed because they struggled to deal with some of the fundamentals. I'm not a Socialist, but the doesn't mean it can't work.

People would say Capitalism has always failed too. Look at 2008.
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.

Such a silly statement to make. How many Socialist countries have there ever been?

China. Hasn't failed
Cuba. Hasn't failed
Laos. Hasn't failed
Vietnam. Hasn't failed
 
Why do Progressives never have a bad word to say about Communism or mankind's most prolific mass murders, all Communists?

Because communism has never killed anyone.
Stalin was not a communist, but a capitalist bank robber, who infiltrated the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists, killed them all, took over, and implemented state capitalism instead.

Look at the characteristics. Communism is collaborative, cooperative, communal, and the way humans normally treat each other in small social groups like families, clubs, tribes, etc.
Those who think communism implies a large centralized state, simply do not know anything about communism.
And what Stalin implemented was not at all collaborative, cooperative, communal, or voluntary.
It was forced, state, capitalism, with purely a profit motive for the ruling elite.
Communism has killed un toldf tens of millions.

Stalin was a communist. He was not a capitalist,

Communism is totalitarian and never cooperative or communial or cllobaorative,

It is you who grapss nothing about communism and is ignorant of it.

Stalin wasn't really a Communist. Do you think Stalin gave a damn about Communism at all? What did Stalin do that was either Communist or pushing for Communism?
He was a communist through and through. he etablished the comintern specifically for the purpose of spreading communism world wide just as Marx required communism to work. He forced the entire nation to work and live in accordance with his interpretation of Marx which is precisely what the dictatorship of the proletariate is meant to do.

Well, the Comintern was established in 1919 before Stalin was a major force. Stalin was on the delegate's list, but it's not known if he actually went.

Stalin was one of those guys who'd use the system he was in in order to gain the power he wanted. Nothing seems to suggest he was a Communist.

Even the early Communists in Russia thought he might be an agent provocateur.
Everything proves he was a communist inclluding his own admission.

Yeah, only if you see things in simple.
You mean seeing things clearly without denial

The problem is you think you're seeing things clearly, but mostly this is because you don't actually bother looking at much.
 
The basic idea is not about property calling it theft or not self made. The basic idea is " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". This is the same basic idea behind slavery which is why it is no coincidence that every communist nation is a slave state.
They got it from the Bible.
That is not a defense of slavery, nor does it lend legitamacy to an evil idea.

But no they did not. There is no such scripture.
Slavery is not about free-market Capitalism.

Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about any "gospel Truth". Appeals to ignorance is all right-wingers are best at.

All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. ... Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.[25]

— Acts 2:44–45, Acts 4:32–35
Please point out where the Roman government mandated this sharing.

Again: Communism can work only in small communities and strictly voluntarily.
Read some history of the Roman Empire.

Only the Religious seem to be able to make it work. Not enough morals to go around among the secular laity?
Face it, kid. You fucked up. There is no Biblical justification for the tyranny you want.
If you had enough reading comprehension you would understand it take morals for that not right-wing fantasy.
Morals to steal from people?

You do know words have meanings, right? You don't get to make up new ones?
Only right-wingers allege that. The rest of us know that the social power to Tax is delegated to our representatives to Government.
"Social power".

No such thing.

But it's HILARIOUS you believe you get to make up definitions! How insanely intellectually bankrupt! :auiqs.jpg:
The ignorance of the right-wing is astounding.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It is accomplished via the social-ism of Government.
Government is not socialism.

Socialism is a form of government which always fails.

That is fact in your face which has been proven time again but being a dishonest and immature right winger you still cling to a proven fallacy

It doesn't always fail at all. There have been a few examples of Socialism and they have failed because they struggled to deal with some of the fundamentals. I'm not a Socialist, but the doesn't mean it can't work.

People would say Capitalism has always failed too. Look at 2008.
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.

Such a silly statement to make. How many Socialist countries have there ever been?

China. Hasn't failed
Cuba. Hasn't failed
Laos. Hasn't failed
Vietnam. Hasn't failed
and how many millions have been killed in those countries under commie rule ? and countries that practice capitalism have a much better standard of living .
 
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.

Such a silly statement to make. How many Socialist countries have there ever been?

China. Hasn't failed
Cuba. Hasn't failed
Laos. Hasn't failed
Vietnam. Hasn't failed
and how many millions have been killed in those countries under commie rule ? and countries that practice capitalism have a much better standard of living .
Bull shit. How many millions have been killed by Capitalist countries? And the US (that boasts of being the Capitalist leader of the world) has a terrible standard of living. Just look at the percentage of poverty in the US.
 
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.

Such a silly statement to make. How many Socialist countries have there ever been?

China. Hasn't failed
Cuba. Hasn't failed
Laos. Hasn't failed
Vietnam. Hasn't failed
and how many millions have been killed in those countries under commie rule ? and countries that practice capitalism have a much better standard of living .
Bull shit. How many millions have been killed by Capitalist countries? And the US (that boasts of being the Capitalist leader of the world) has a terrible standard of living. Just look at the percentage of poverty in the US.
you stupid communist bastard ! communism is responsible for the deaths of over 100 million ! and thats not including the 10s of millions of the unborn you vile killers of the unborn have supported !
 
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.

Such a silly statement to make. How many Socialist countries have there ever been?

China. Hasn't failed
Cuba. Hasn't failed
Laos. Hasn't failed
Vietnam. Hasn't failed
and how many millions have been killed in those countries under commie rule ? and countries that practice capitalism have a much better standard of living .
Bull shit. How many millions have been killed by Capitalist countries? And the US (that boasts of being the Capitalist leader of the world) has a terrible standard of living. Just look at the percentage of poverty in the US.
name 1 country you listed that has a better standard of living you vile gender confused killer of the unborn .
 
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.

Such a silly statement to make. How many Socialist countries have there ever been?

China. Hasn't failed
Cuba. Hasn't failed
Laos. Hasn't failed
Vietnam. Hasn't failed
and how many millions have been killed in those countries under commie rule ? and countries that practice capitalism have a much better standard of living .
Bull shit. How many millions have been killed by Capitalist countries? And the US (that boasts of being the Capitalist leader of the world) has a terrible standard of living. Just look at the percentage of poverty in the US.
name 1 country you listed that has a better standard of living you vile gender confused killer of the unborn .

Here is an introduction to that subject. Note that those nations at the top of those "FULL DEMOCRACIES" are all SOCIALIST-DEMOCRACIES. The US, as you can see for yourself, is well down the index and is only a "Flawed Democracy". This index reflects health, freedom, and standard of living. Poverty and destitution are rampant in the US but nearly non-existent in the top Social-Democratic nations.

Read, you foul-mouthed underachiever:

x World Democracy Index 2020 1.jpg
x World Democracy Index 2020 2.jpg
 
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.

Such a silly statement to make. How many Socialist countries have there ever been?

China. Hasn't failed
Cuba. Hasn't failed
Laos. Hasn't failed
Vietnam. Hasn't failed
and how many millions have been killed in those countries under commie rule ? and countries that practice capitalism have a much better standard of living .
Bull shit. How many millions have been killed by Capitalist countries? And the US (that boasts of being the Capitalist leader of the world) has a terrible standard of living. Just look at the percentage of poverty in the US.
name 1 country you listed that has a better standard of living you vile gender confused killer of the unborn .

Here is an introduction to that subject. Note that those nations at the top of those "FULL DEMOCRACIES" are all SOCIALIST-DEMOCRACIES. The US, as you can see for yourself, is well down the index and is only a "Flawed Democracy". This index reflects health, freedom, and standard of living. Poverty and destitution are rampant in the US but nearly non-existent in the top Social-Democratic nations.

Read, you foul-mouthed underachiever:

View attachment 504234View attachment 504235
and many of those countries are protected because we have the most powerful military on the planet ! and as far as me being an underachiever you are the one touting socialism ! need that gubament to even the playing field dont you commie ! you cant stand the fact that someone may live in a bigger house or drive a nicer car !
 


Stalin was a communist. He was not a capitalist,

What's indeed not a fact but an interesting question. What is the role of party bigwigs in a "part"-y which controls everyone and everything and which is totalitarian under control of only one Trump? How fits this with any theory at all?

The basic idea of communism "property is theft" - better to say "property is not self-made" - is for sure not really wrong in case of some few hundred families in the world. But this some few hundred families own more than 90% of everything.

I fear whether someone likes this or not: We will need a new system of economy in the world. 100-150 years ago most people were farmers and were able to produce everything - with hard work - what they needed. In the world today it is impossible to survive without money. And it becomes more and more diffcult not to become a slave of others and to seed an own money tree, so no one has to die on hunger, because he is able to buy food.
The role of one leader is precisely what is called for in communism as it develops. Marx clearly stated that a dictagtorship is required for a while.

No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me.
The dictatorship of the proletariate does not have to be limited to dictatorship by one person but that is what it refers to.

Dictatorship is dictatorship whether or not one hangs a qualifier on it or not.
You answered too fast and too flat.
Here again what I wrote:

-----
No idea what Marx said - after 50 pages I closed the boring book "Das Kapital". I know he said for example "I am not a Marxist". And sentences like "the dictatorship of the proletariat (=working class)" is not the dictatorship of a single person. and whether a tyrant with a slaveholder mentality is a Communist or a Capitalist is the same to me. Nevertheless it is far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

By the way - do you know the text of the Commie anthem "Die Internationale". When the socialist state GDR still existed I wondered myselve often about why the dictators of this tyranny did not arrest everyone who sang this song.


-----

Dictatorship of the proletariate is indeed the dictatorship of one person.

That's without logic.
Any dictatorship could be more than one person such as a regime or junta but in general it is one person and what marx meant which is why Stalion was a communist following the plan even if slightly tweaked.

Short: I am not a Commie and Capitalism means also nothing to me. No idea what you try to criticize. It is nevertheless still far from justice to give everything to some few people and nothing to billions.

It is perfectly logical.


It is not. But from my point of view it makes not any sense to try to explain to you now why, because it's totally unimportant.

One dictator can easily grow or emerge out of the proletariate class.

Wealth and the making of wealth has nothing to do with justice and wealth is not given.

Inequality of wealth and income is in fact perfectly just and harms NO ONE.

no comment

It is perfectly logical unlerss of course one cannoty grasp what logic means.

no comment
... or very short: Think about the dictatorship of Monday over Sunday.

He was not writing metaphoriccally he was referring to the necessity and requirement of a dictatorship.

All communist dictators are precisely what marx required


Marx said "I am not a Marxist" and I don't know what he really wrote. Nevertheless is the idea "dictatorship of the proletariat" has to be a dictatorshop of a single person an idea without logic - and if Marx really said so then it is without logic what he said. So what? Totally unimportant.
 
The basic idea is not about property calling it theft or not self made. The basic idea is " from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". This is the same basic idea behind slavery which is why it is no coincidence that every communist nation is a slave state.
They got it from the Bible.
That is not a defense of slavery, nor does it lend legitamacy to an evil idea.

But no they did not. There is no such scripture.
Slavery is not about free-market Capitalism.

Nobody takes right-wingers seriously about any "gospel Truth". Appeals to ignorance is all right-wingers are best at.

All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. ... Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ... There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.[25]

— Acts 2:44–45, Acts 4:32–35
Please point out where the Roman government mandated this sharing.

Again: Communism can work only in small communities and strictly voluntarily.
Read some history of the Roman Empire.

Only the Religious seem to be able to make it work. Not enough morals to go around among the secular laity?
Face it, kid. You fucked up. There is no Biblical justification for the tyranny you want.
If you had enough reading comprehension you would understand it take morals for that not right-wing fantasy.
Morals to steal from people?

You do know words have meanings, right? You don't get to make up new ones?
Only right-wingers allege that. The rest of us know that the social power to Tax is delegated to our representatives to Government.
"Social power".

No such thing.

But it's HILARIOUS you believe you get to make up definitions! How insanely intellectually bankrupt! :auiqs.jpg:
The ignorance of the right-wing is astounding.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It is accomplished via the social-ism of Government.
Government is not socialism.

Socialism is a form of government which always fails.

That is fact in your face which has been proven time again but being a dishonest and immature right winger you still cling to a proven fallacy

It doesn't always fail at all. There have been a few examples of Socialism and they have failed because they struggled to deal with some of the fundamentals. I'm not a Socialist, but the doesn't mean it can't work.

People would say Capitalism has always failed too. Look at 2008.
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.

Such a silly statement to make. How many Socialist countries have there ever been?

China. Hasn't failed
Cuba. Hasn't failed
Laos. Hasn't failed
Vietnam. Hasn't failed
and how many millions have been killed in those countries under commie rule ? and countries that practice capitalism have a much better standard of living .

What's your point? Capitalism doesn't kill?

Look at Vietnam. They had the Capitalist French turn up and try and kill them, then the US turned up and tried to kill them.

Yes, different countries have pounded on their people.

China is pounding on the Xinjiang and Tibetan peoples.
The US pounded on the blacks and Native Americans.

Difference is.... NOTHING>
 
Capiyalism is still going strong socialism always fails.

Such a silly statement to make. How many Socialist countries have there ever been?

China. Hasn't failed
Cuba. Hasn't failed
Laos. Hasn't failed
Vietnam. Hasn't failed
and how many millions have been killed in those countries under commie rule ? and countries that practice capitalism have a much better standard of living .
Bull shit. How many millions have been killed by Capitalist countries? And the US (that boasts of being the Capitalist leader of the world) has a terrible standard of living. Just look at the percentage of poverty in the US.
name 1 country you listed that has a better standard of living you vile gender confused killer of the unborn .

Wow, looks like you're not interested in a proper conversation. You need some ice or something.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top