Condemning communism

[Lastamender]

I think they were violating the sovereignty of the people they kept enslaved and I'd be amused to watch you argue otherwise.

Do you feel like black political agendas are punishing to you? Are you a victim?

I am not here to argue about the past. It was legal at the time and this thread is about Communism.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't care how most people interpret it. Yes or no the slaving American Founders factually fit the definition of tyrants? You going to deny reality again because it triggers you? Do you need a safe space little *****?

Yes, you don't care if people understand your true meaning, That's because you are trying to deceive them.

 

[Curried Goats]

The Founding Fathers were no different than the leaders of any other country, so why have you singled them out for special disapprobation?

Who singled them out? I also pointed out that communist Chinese were engaging in slavery today as well. Do you not know what singling out means either? Do I need to post that definition for you as well, short bus?

They obviously are, and I am a victim.

A victim of your own ignorance, and I like you that way. Stay stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Who singled them out?

You did, moron.

I also pointed out that communist Chinese were engaging in slavery today as well. Do you not know what singling out means either? Do I need to post that definition for you as well, short bus?

We are no better than the communist Chinese?

You're a ******* scumbag.

A victim of your own ignorance, and I like you that way. Stay stupid.

You're the one who is ignorant, jackass.,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The pattern that I see over and over is condemnation of communism from righties, and support and defense of communism from lefties.

A shameless lie. Else show me 3 "lefties" that defend or support communism on this site. The actual posts. Should be easy, use the search function.

 

[bripat9643]

A shameless lie. Else show me 3 "lefties" that defend or support communism on this site. The actual posts. Should be easy, use the search function.

There are dozens of them. George is the one that immediately comes to mind.

 

[Curried Goats]

I am not here to argue about the past. It was legal at the time and this thread is about Communism.

You tried to argue the past but you got shut down and are running away with your tail between your legs. That's fine. I accept your surrender.

As for communism and socialism, my point was that these economic systems are not inherently tyrannical like capitalism isn't inherently benevolent. Whether or not they are is dependent on how they are implemented. If you pass socialist policies democratically, in a country that respects equal rights, then it can't be described as tyranny. On the other hand if you turn people into private property who you then exploit for profit, than can indeed be described as tyranny.

Thoughts?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are dozens of them. George is the one that immediately comes to mind.

He posts here? That's a lie, anyway.

Dozens? Wow! How many democrats in the US?

 

[bripat9643]

You tried to argue the past but you got shut down and are running away with your tail between your legs. That's fine. I accept your surrender.

As for communism and socialism, my point was that these economic systems are not inherently tyrannical like capitalism isn't inherently benevolent.

That's dead wrong. They are inherently tyrannical. Furthermore, you claimed that a tyranny isn't necessarily evil.

Whether or not they are is dependent on how they are implemented.

You can't implement socialism or communism without tyranny. Taking people's property is tyrannical.

If you pass socialist policies democratically, in a country that respects equal rights, then it can't be described as tyranny. On the other hand if you turn people into private property who then exploit for profit, than can indeed be described as tyranny.

Thoughts?

You can't implement socialism without violating their property rights. Whether they have other "equal" right is irrelevant.

 

[bripat9643]

He posts here? That's a lie, anyway.

Dozens? Wow! How many democrats in the US?

Yes, he does post here, and he's always defending communism.

 

[Rigby5]

Curried Goats is correct.
Socialism and communism are well defined abstractions, where people collectively, communally, cooperative, and voluntarily pool some common resources for the common good.
That pretty much requires a democratic republic.
Everyone has to have input on decision making, and everyone has to have equitable profit sharing from the fruits of the joint venture.
If either of those is not true, then it is not at all socialist or communist.

There is no way to define socialism or communism to turn those abstractions into anything totalitarian or authoritarian.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, he does post here, and he's always defending communism.

Oh look, two embarrassing Shameless lies.

You clearly know less than nothing about Soros, communism, or history regarding this. You should probably just shut up immediately. And you certainly have come nowhere close to showing that Lefties support communism in any significant number. Because they don't. So you can't.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, you don't care if people understand your true meaning, That's because you are trying to deceive them.

No, it's because your ignorance isn't my problem. It's yours. I don't mind my enemies being ignorant and stupid.

You did, moron.

Single means one you incredible idiot. I mentioned capitalist American slavers and communist Chinese slavers. That's two, which if you could count you'd know was more than one. Jesus christ you're ******* stupid.

We are no better than the communist Chinese?

The American Founders weren't.

You're a ******* scumbag.

Lol. Awww. Poor baby. Did I hurt your feelings?

You're the one who is ignorant, jackass.,

You don't even know what single means you assclown. Lol.

 

[bripat9643]

Curried Goats is correct.
Socialism and communism are well defined abstractions, where people collectively, communally, cooperative, and voluntarily pool some common resources for the common good.
That pretty much requires a democratic republic.
Everyone has to have input on decision making, and everyone has to have equitable profit sharing from the fruits of the joint venture.
If either of those is not true, then it is not at all socialist or communist.

There is no way to define socialism or communism to turn those abstractions into anything totalitarian or authoritarian.

Socialism is government control of the means of production. That's all it means. You post is propaganda, not fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh look, two embarrassing Shameless lies.

You clearly know less than nothing about Soros, communism, or history regarding this. You should probably just shut up immediately. And you certainly have come nowhere close to showing that Lefties support communism in any significant number. Because they don't. So you can't.

I think that's 5 lies you posted.

 

[Rigby5]

That's dead wrong. They are inherently tyrannical. Furthermore, you claimed that a tyranny isn't necessarily evil.


You can't implement socialism or communism without tyranny. Taking people's property is tyrannical.



You can't implement socialism without violating their property rights. Whether they have other "equal" right is irrelevant.

It is impossible for cooperative, collective, and communal ideas like socialism and communism to ever be tyrannical.
For something to be cooperative, collective, and communal, everyone has to have input into decision making and an equitable share in output profits.

The only time tyranny is not evil is when you have a benevolent dictator, and even that is a very bad idea because no one lives forever.

Human society has always implemented socialism or communism without tyranny, for millions of years.
All humans lived in socialist or communist hunter/gatherer tribes for millions of years.
When you voluntarily feed your children, no one is taking the property of anyone else.
When the hunters and gatherers of the tribe pool their results, there is no taking.

When you pay your taxes for communal roads or schools, no one is "taking".
You support the communal achievements because you know they will do you good as well.

 

[Curried Goats]

That's dead wrong. They are inherently tyrannical. Furthermore, you claimed that a tyranny isn't necessarily evil.

I pointed out that notions of good and evil are subjective, you don't even know what single means so there's really no reason to believe you can understand what subjective means.

As for communism and socialism being inherently tyrannical, prove it. Explain what is tyrannical about democratically chosen socialism in a country that respects the equal rights of its citizens.

You can't implement socialism or communism without tyranny. Taking people's property is tyrannical.

You can't implement capitalism without taking property for individual ownership without tyrannical force either. You still don't know what property is or where it comes from.

You can't implement socialism without violating their property rights. Whether they have other "equal" right is irrelevant.

Government decides what your rights are.

 

[Lastamender]

You tried to argue the past but you got shut down and are running away with your tail between your legs. That's fine. I accept your surrender.

As for communism and socialism, my point was that these economic systems are not inherently tyrannical like capitalism isn't inherently benevolent. Whether or not they are is dependent on how they are implemented. If you pass socialist policies democratically, in a country that respects equal rights, then it can't be described as tyranny. On the other hand if you turn people into private property who you then exploit for profit, than can indeed be described as tyranny.

Thoughts?

You shut no one down. Get over yourself.

 

[Rigby5]

Socialism is government control of the means of production. That's all it means. You post is propaganda, not fact.

Government control over the means of production only means that there can be laws against child labor, monopolies of scarce resource, price gouging, illegal union busting, slavery, polluting, unsafe work conditions, etc.
No one can argue against that.

The fact socialism also implies that we could collectively engage in public means of production, does not mean it ever has to happen.
If private capitalists do the production well, then there is no reason to put public funds into it.
It is only when private capitalists do badly that the public has to step in, like with AmTrak.
We likely need to do more public enterprise, and I would suggest health care badly needs it.

 

[Curried Goats]

You shut no one down. Get over yourself.

Lol. I shut you down cuck boy. You know it.