Sean Hanity sums it up

[JoeB131]

Karl Marx did not publish his documents defining Communism until after Joseph Smith was dead.

Joseph Smith never lived to hear of Communism.

Every prominent LDS leader that has spoken of Communism has condemned it as evil; has stated that it is of Satan.

Except the early Mormon Church kind of operated live the Soviet State... the leaders lived the good life in mansions with the harems of child brides, and the rank and file toiled to keep them rich... Just like the Soviets. Fortunately, your cult was in America, and the Federal Government told you to knock that shit off.

I've been a Mormon longer than you've been alive. My parents were Mormons, as were my grandparents, great-grandparents, and most of my great-great-grandparents.

It's funny how many lying pieces of shit such as yourself, I have heard claim that they know my religion better than I do, as they spew absurd lies that are wholly irreconcilable with my direct, firsthand experience of what I have been taught, and what I have practiced, as a Mormon.

That doesn't impress me. It's pretty clear that you didn't know about Joseph Smith and his Child Brides until I told you about them... and even then, you came up with some convoluted explanation that the marriages to little girls and rich old ladies was spiritual and not at all nefarious. (Even though the people at the time didn't think so, that's what they shot him for.)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Except the early Mormon Church kind of operated live the Soviet State... the leaders lived the good life in mansions with the harems of child brides, and the rank and file toiled to keep them rich... Just like the Soviets. Fortunately, your cult was in America, and the Federal Government told you to knock that shit off.



That doesn't impress me. It's pretty clear that you didn't know about Joseph Smith and his Child Brides until I told you about them... and even then, you came up with some convoluted explanation that the marriages to little girls and rich old ladies was spiritual and not at all nefarious. (Even though the people at the time didn't think so, that's what they shot him for.)

Duly noted you can't refute a point I make about your cult.

So why was it okay for Joseph Smith to have sex with teenage girls and not Roman Polanski?

Once again, there is no need to go to this much trouble to show everyone what a hateful, lying piece of shit you are.

Everyone already knows.

 

[JoeB131]

Once again, there is no need to go to this much trouble to show everyone what a hateful, lying piece of shit you are.

Everyone already knows.

Duly noted you can't refute a point I make about your cult.

So why was it okay for Joseph Smith to have sex with teenage girls and not Roman Polanski?

 

[Mac-7]

The only reason why people could afford washing machines and refrigerators was because after the New Deal, they were making decent enough wages to afford them.

Thats wrong

Wages rose during WWII because so many workers were in the military

It created the need for wage and price controls

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So why was it okay for Joseph Smith to have sex with teenage girls and not Roman Polanski?

You're the one who has consistently defended Roman Polanski. Why do you think what he did was OK, and how do you think it helps his case to falsely accuse others of what he admitted to having done?

 

[Red Front]

This is much too long, still. People do not want to read this wall of text on a message board, and they will not.

But I did catch this, and laughed out loud:

Advanced technology that replaces human labor (drudgery), is sought and pursued, in order to free human beings from having to work "jobs", and allow people to do what they want with their lives, working in that which imbues their lives with meaning, adventure, glory, happiness..etc.Are you an artist, an explorer, a scientist, a teacher, a writer, or an organizer who establishes new space colonies, what and who are you? You'll have the power, time, and resources to decide such things for yourself. That's the modern world that American communists want to create.

The reason communism fails is that it doesn't work with human nature. Humans get in the way of communism. Also, communists are very good at writing these lofty Utopian ideas and then when they even try it in...wait for it...COMMUNES....it's a disaster.

Communism belongs in a "wouldn't it be nice?" scenario. And you know what? It would. It would be really great, super nice, if the above situation could in any way work out given human nature. But it never has, it won't now, and it never will.

Because humans.

Sweet Sue:

This is much too long, still. People do not want to read this wall of text on a message board, and they will not.

Response:

Those who aren't interested in learning about communism, won't read it, those that are, will.

Sweet Sue:

But I did catch this, and laughed out loud:

Advanced technology that replaces human labor (drudgery), is sought and pursued, in order to free human beings from having to work "jobs", and allow people to do what they want with their lives, working in that which imbues their lives with meaning, adventure, glory, happiness..etc.Are you an artist, an explorer, a scientist, a teacher, a writer, or an organizer who establishes new space colonies, what and who are you? You'll have the power, time, and resources to decide such things for yourself. That's the modern world that American communists want to create.

The reason communism fails is that it doesn't work with human nature.

Response:

Human nature according to your personal opinion of what it is. What is human nature? Stoneage savagery? Humans can't evolve? We can't change? We're stuck with the "human nature", that you've personally decided that we are forever bound and fixed to, regardless of whatever we might do to improve ourselves? Really? No, that's just a disengenous, immature way of admitting that your personal character (Sweet Sue's "nature"), your personal feelings and sentiments (Sweet Sue's "nature"), due to her ignorance, personal interests and investments, hates the idea of capitalism being replaced with socialism and eventually communism (after socialism).

Sweet Sue:

Humans get in the way of communism.

Response:

The lack of material conditions prevents communism from being established, hence the initial process of socialism (socializing, democratizing, and personalizing production to the point of communism). Human capitalists are the ones who primarily get in the way of socialism and communism, just as kings and nobles, slave masters, and feudal lords once got in the way of capitalist merchants and industrialists. One economic system and mode of production doesn't replace another without a fight, and that struggle might take centuries as it did with capitalism and its predecessors.

The kings and nobles of Europe, the feudal lords, hated the wealthy, powerful merchant class. They saw them as a serious threat to their wealth and power, and indeed they were. Those merchants became the industrialists of the 19th century, when technology permitted them to establish market capitalism, thanks to industrialization, toppling the wealth and power of monarchies, and replacing them with modern industrialized Republics. The monarchs that remained in power, did so only under democratic institutions ("democratic" at least in principle, more plutocratic in practice), like parliaments, that are under the control of capitalists. In the not-too-distant future, socialism (the power of the working class, of the people/populace), will replace the capitalists, thanks to advanced 21st-century technology.

Sweet Sue:

Also, communists are very good at writing these lofty Utopian ideas and then when they even try it in...wait for it...COMMUNES....it's a disaster.

Response:

Your assumption that communes don't work is quite silly, on account of the fact that there are some very successful communes throughout the United States and the world. Whether religious, like the Christian Hutterites and Bruderhof, or Hindu Ashrams, or secular "intentional communities" (i.e. communes) , like:

Sustainable Living Visitor Program | Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage

Do you want to discover the magic of living communally? Request an application before programs fill up so you can join our community for a sustainable living immersion! Give Me the Application Now! https://youtu.be/bVL1d9Zni5khttps://youtu.be/bVL1d9Zni5kParticipate in Workshops!Natural buildings...

www.dancingrabbit.org

There are many communes throughout the world, and some of them have been around for over 100 years.

Communes - Foundation for Intentional Community

www.ic.org

However, you're conflating two forms of communism, with one of them not applying to what I am writing about in my posts. The socialism and communism that I'm referring to are Marxist and on a national scale, not a community of a few hundred people or thousands of people living in several communist colonies within a "greater society". You're the one confusing the two and falsely contending such communes always fail. No, not true, they don't always fail, some are very successful.

Socialism and communism work both at the scale of a small community and at a national scale as well, but both have different requirements with respect to the material conditions that ensure their success.

The following video shows how a US government official admits that Colombia's current leftist, socialist government, wouldn't have been allowed in the past.

​

The US State Department would've, with the CIA, stopped the Colombian socialist presidential candidate from winning the election (so much for democracy!), or would've toppled that socialist leader from power, via a coup d'etat.

Critics of socialism, like yourself, who are always pointing out how socialism supposedly doesn't work, conveniently never factor in the fact that the US (a powerful capitalist empire), along with its allies, do everything possible to destroy countries that adopt socialism as their economic and political system. You may agree with such illegal and immoral interference, but if you want to be an honest, fair critic of socialism, you at least need to recognize that such actions by the US, undermine socialism's effectiveness and success. Right? Do you have enough character to acknowledge that? Probably not, but maybe and hopefully you'll prove me wrong.

In summary, here are a few points that should be considered.

1. No economic system or mode of production replaces its predecessor overnight, in one quick, perfect, victorious swoop. Capitalism didn't do it, and neither will socialism.
2. Just because an attempt to establish an economic system or mode of production fails to replace its predecessor at one point in history, doesn't imply that it won't in the future. Material conditions at a future date might necessitate the adoption of that new system, and that's exactly what Marx, Engels, and Lenin taught. Material conditions determine whether one economic system and mode of production will successfully replace another, not wishful thinking or even a violent revolution.
3. Advanced 21st-century technology will necessitate the adoption of a form of production that isn't based on private profits, paying consumers, or markets. That economic system is called "socialism" and "communism" (socialism is the process that leads to communism).
4. The so-called "universal basic income" or UBI, that is now being offered by billionaires as a "solution" to the mass unemployment that will be created by advanced 21st-century technology (automated systems, autonomous machines, general artificial intelligence, robotics, self-driving vehicles, nanotechnology, supercomputers), is nothing but a pathetic attempt to magically conjure up paying consumers and a market, via a government monthly bailout they call a "UBI". It's capitalism on life support.
5. If the working class accepts the billionaire's offer of "free money", they (the working class) will forever become enslaved, in a techno-fiefdom, where the rich own all of the technology (means of production), along with all of its state-protected patents and licenses. The rich will purchase all of the real estate properties, and 80% of the population will be living in abject poverty, paying rent to their wealthy landlords, while receiving a check from the state.
6. The technology that eliminates wage labor, will always remain in the hands of the former ruling class, while the former working class is consigned to poverty, disease and death.

A better solution is socialism and eventually the communism that will emerge from that socialism when technology allows the individual consumer to produce all of the goods that he or she consumes.

​

We, modern American communists, offer true economic, social, and spiritual freedom, while the capitalists offer perpetual enslavement to an obsolete, exploitative system of production that they own and control. Let's all own the means of production, not just one group or socioeconomic class. We all own the technology, machinery, and facilities of production, together as a community. We produce and distribute everything that we consume to meet our needs (not for a profit). We organize production in worker-cooperatives that are run democratically, in cooperation with a socialist state that is likewise democratic.

 

[JoeB131]

You're the one who has consistently defended Roman Polanski. Why do you think what he did was OK, and how do you think it helps his case to falsely accuse others of what he admitted to having done?

I don't think what he did was okay.

I think the behavior of the authorities was worse. He confessed in exchange for a light sentence and restitution.

The Judge in the case went back on the agreement.

But you can't claim that what he did was the WORST THING EVER when the founders of your cult engaged in the same behavior.

I actually do think that murdering Joseph Smith, while amusing, was also a violation of his civil rights.

 

[JoeB131]

hats wrong

Wages rose during WWII because so many workers were in the military

It created the need for wage and price controls

So you are a tad confused...

If there were wage and price controls, then wages didn't really go up.

When you have a sudden influx of returning vets looking for jobs, that should have brought labor costs down. But it didn't because FDR instituted fair wage laws and supported unionization.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But you can't claim that what he did was the WORST THING EVER when the founders of your cult engaged in the same behavior.

Good thing, then, that the founders of my religion did no such things.

You're lying when you claim they did. You know you're lying; I know you're lying; everyone here knows you're lying.

Lying is what you do.

Lying is what you are.

Everyone here knows better than to expect any different of you.

 

[SweetSue92]

Sweet Sue:

This is much too long, still. People do not want to read this wall of text on a message board, and they will not.

Response:

Those who aren't interested in learning about communism, won't read it, those that are, will.

Sweet Sue:

But I did catch this, and laughed out loud:

Advanced technology that replaces human labor (drudgery), is sought and pursued, in order to free human beings from having to work "jobs", and allow people to do what they want with their lives, working in that which imbues their lives with meaning, adventure, glory, happiness..etc.Are you an artist, an explorer, a scientist, a teacher, a writer, or an organizer who establishes new space colonies, what and who are you? You'll have the power, time, and resources to decide such things for yourself. That's the modern world that American communists want to create.

The reason communism fails is that it doesn't work with human nature.

Response:

Human nature according to your personal opinion of what it is. What is human nature? Stoneage savagery? Humans can't evolve? We can't change? We're stuck with the "human nature", that you've personally decided that we are forever bound and fixed to, regardless of whatever we might do to improve ourselves? Really? No, that's just a disengenous, immature way of admitting that your personal character (Sweet Sue's "nature"), your personal feelings and sentiments (Sweet Sue's "nature"), due to her ignorance, personal interests and investments, hates the idea of capitalism being replaced with socialism and eventually communism (after socialism).

Sweet Sue:

Humans get in the way of communism.

Response:

The lack of material conditions prevents communism from being established, hence the initial process of socialism (socializing, democratizing, and personalizing production to the point of communism). Human capitalists are the ones who primarily get in the way of socialism and communism, just as kings and nobles, slave masters, and feudal lords once got in the way of capitalist merchants and industrialists. One economic system and mode of production doesn't replace another without a fight, and that struggle might take centuries as it did with capitalism and its predecessors.

The kings and nobles of Europe, the feudal lords, hated the wealthy, powerful merchant class. They saw them as a serious threat to their wealth and power, and indeed they were. Those merchants became the industrialists of the 19th century, when technology permitted them to establish market capitalism, thanks to industrialization, toppling the wealth and power of monarchies, and replacing them with modern industrialized Republics. The monarchs that remained in power, did so only under democratic institutions ("democratic" at least in principle, more plutocratic in practice), like parliaments, that are under the control of capitalists. In the not-too-distant future, socialism (the power of the working class, of the people/populace), will replace the capitalists, thanks to advanced 21st-century technology.

Sweet Sue:

Also, communists are very good at writing these lofty Utopian ideas and then when they even try it in...wait for it...COMMUNES....it's a disaster.

Response:

Your assumption that communes don't work is quite silly, on account of the fact that there are some very successful communes throughout the United States and the world. Whether religious, like the Christian Hutterites and Bruderhof, or Hindu Ashrams, or secular "intentional communities" (i.e. communes) , like:

Sustainable Living Visitor Program | Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage

Do you want to discover the magic of living communally? Request an application before programs fill up so you can join our community for a sustainable living immersion! Give Me the Application Now! https://youtu.be/bVL1d9Zni5khttps://youtu.be/bVL1d9Zni5kParticipate in Workshops!Natural buildings...

www.dancingrabbit.org

There are many communes throughout the world, and some of them have been around for over 100 years.

Communes - Foundation for Intentional Community

www.ic.org

However, you're conflating two forms of communism, with one of them not applying to what I am writing about in my posts. The socialism and communism that I'm referring to are Marxist and on a national scale, not a community of a few hundred people or thousands of people living in several communist colonies within a "greater society". You're the one confusing the two and falsely contending such communes always fail. No, not true, they don't always fail, some are very successful.

Socialism and communism work both at the scale of a small community and at a national scale as well, but both have different requirements with respect to the material conditions that ensure their success.

The following video shows how a US government official admits that Colombia's current leftist, socialist government, wouldn't have been allowed in the past.

​

The US State Department would've, with the CIA, stopped the Colombian socialist presidential candidate from winning the election (so much for democracy!), or would've toppled that socialist leader from power, via a coup d'etat.

Critics of socialism, like yourself, who are always pointing out how socialism supposedly doesn't work, conveniently never factor in the fact that the US (a powerful capitalist empire), along with its allies, do everything possible to destroy countries that adopt socialism as their economic and political system. You may agree with such illegal and immoral interference, but if you want to be an honest, fair critic of socialism, you at least need to recognize that such actions by the US, undermine socialism's effectiveness and success. Right? Do you have enough character to acknowledge that? Probably not, but maybe and hopefully you'll prove me wrong.

In summary, here are a few points that should be considered.

1. No economic system or mode of production replaces its predecessor overnight, in one quick, perfect, victorious swoop. Capitalism didn't do it, and neither will socialism.
2. Just because an attempt to establish an economic system or mode of production fails to replace its predecessor at one point in history, doesn't imply that it won't in the future. Material conditions at a future date might necessitate the adoption of that new system, and that's exactly what Marx, Engels, and Lenin taught. Material conditions determine whether one economic system and mode of production will successfully replace another, not wishful thinking or even a violent revolution.
3. Advanced 21st-century technology will necessitate the adoption of a form of production that isn't based on private profits, paying consumers, or markets. That economic system is called "socialism" and "communism" (socialism is the process that leads to communism).
4. The so-called "universal basic income" or UBI, that is now being offered by billionaires as a "solution" to the mass unemployment that will be created by advanced 21st-century technology (automated systems, autonomous machines, general artificial intelligence, robotics, self-driving vehicles, nanotechnology, supercomputers), is nothing but a pathetic attempt to magically conjure up paying consumers and a market, via a government monthly bailout they call a "UBI". It's capitalism on life support.
5. If the working class accepts the billionaire's offer of "free money", they (the working class) will forever become enslaved, in a techno-fiefdom, where the rich own all of the technology (means of production), along with all of its state-protected patents and licenses. The rich will purchase all of the real estate properties, and 80% of the population will be living in abject poverty, paying rent to their wealthy landlords, while receiving a check from the state.
6. The technology that eliminates wage labor, will always remain in the hands of the former ruling class, while the former working class is consigned to poverty, disease and death.

A better solution is socialism and eventually the communism that will emerge from that socialism when technology allows the individual consumer to produce all of the goods that he or she consumes.

​

We, modern American communists, offer true economic, social, and spiritual freedom, while the capitalists offer perpetual enslavement to an obsolete, exploitative system of production that they own and control. Let's all own the means of production, not just one group or socioeconomic class. We all own the technology, machinery, and facilities of production, together as a community. We produce and distribute everything that we consume to meet our needs (not for a profit). We organize production in worker-cooperatives that are run democratically, in cooperation with a socialist state that is likewise democratic.

Last paragraph. Your entire system fails at "meet our needs". Who decides what everyone needs? Start there. Make it succinct. Good writing is always good communication. Bad writing is that which people will not read. Please do not answer with a redundant wall of text. Give me a bullet point. Who decides what individuals need?

 

[JoeB131]

Good thing, then, that the founders of my religion did no such things.

You're lying when you claim they did. You know you're lying; I know you're lying; everyone here knows you're lying.

Bob, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's polygamy with young girls is a MATTER OF HISTORICAL RECORD.

List of Joseph Smith's wives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of Brigham Young's wives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This isn't even a disputed point, even your Cult doesn't deny it at this point.

 

[Red Front]

Last paragraph. Your entire system fails at "meet our needs". Who decides what everyone needs? Start there. Make it succinct. Good writing is always good communication. Bad writing is that which people will not read. Please do not answer with a redundant wall of text. Give me a bullet point. Who decides what individuals need?

Don't read anything I write, just place me on ignore. Do you think I post for people with your attitude? No. I know people read every word I write, I get their messages, they subscribe to my blog, they visit my live stream lectures, and attend my classes here in NYC. I could care less if a belligerent person like yourself laughs at everything I say and ignores most of the content I create. So what? Now for the sake of others, who are interested in socialism, I will continue writing....

Who or what decides what are legitimate needs and what aren't? Who or what decides the distinction between needs and wants? Can wants be considered needs? Where do we get our rights from?

The answer:

There are needs that are self-evidently legitimate, provided the community recognizes one's life as a right. A person's survival and health are dependent upon food, housing, clothing, social life, healthcare, education/vocational training..etc. There are basic needs that we all have to satisfy in order to exist and other needs that we have to meet in order to have a fulfilling, meaningful, happy life. Due to the fact that a modern, technologically advanced socialist state, will be under the authority of leaders who are elected by the people, that socialist government will do everything possible to satisfy everyone's material needs and wants. There will be systems in place that will allow people to easily organize production teams to produce products and deliver the services that they want.

When advanced technology permits, the individual consumer will be able to produce all of the products that they consume, without anyone else's help or input, using atomic precision manufacturing machines and other technologies that will be available at that time. Until then, production will remain a social activity performed by production teams and cooperatives, organized by the people.

As in our present society, just because you feel like doing or having something, doesn't imply you have the right to. I might feel like I need to turn my front yard into a miniature golf course and raise a giant 100ft statue of Donald Trump wrapped in blinking Christmas tree lights, but that doesn't imply that my perceived need is going to be accepted by the community as a legitimate need that I have a right to satisfy. They will most likely not allow me to turn my front yard into a miniature golf course, or raise that giant statue, due to zoning laws and other considerations (property value..etc). So even under a capitalist system, just because I feel like having or doing something, doesn't give me the right to have it or do it. That will also apply in a socialist society, and a lot more can be allowed and supplied in a socialist system than in a capitalist one, especially today thanks to our advanced technology.

In a modern, high-tech socialist society, there would be systems in place that allow an individual like yourself to introduce new products and services to society. That system or mechanism could involve a software program that you have in your computer that is connected to the National Production Cooperative Network (i.e. "CPCN"), managed by the socialist state, allowing you to design products, whether you're a professional designer or not, and allocate technology (robots, artificial intelligence) and facilities (space in a factory), resources (raw materials), to design and produce new products. You can also organize a production team comprised of human labor working with advanced technology, and get access to government facilities, machinery, resources that will allow you to produce that product.

It's both the individual and the community that decides what is legitimate and illegitimate, allowed and prohibited, legal and illegal, what needs must be met, what wants can be entertained, what we can and can't produce. A person using advanced technology might want to produce a nuclear weapon or a micro-nuclear electric plant in their garage. Well, one might be able to produce the micro-nuclear MSR/Molten Salt Reactor (safe and clean nuclear energy), from their home, provided they get a permit from the state and have their garage inspected by a nuclear safety team. As far as the nuclear bomb, well it's pretty clear why you or I shouldn't be building nuclear bombs in our garages. That should be prohibited. I might have a "need" to have a nuclear bomb, but to hell with my "need" for the nuke, it just wouldn't be accepted as a legitimate need or want.

So at the very least, there is nothing worse in socialism with respect to freedom in meeting your needs as there is in capitalism. Modern socialism will meet your needs even better than capitalism and give you more freedom and time.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Bob, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's polygamy with young girls is a MATTER OF HISTORICAL RECORD.

This isn't even a disputed point, even your Cult doesn't deny it at this point.

A bait-and-switch that is perhaps a bit more clever than your usual simple lies.

No one in my church denies the practice of plural marriage.

But nobody with better than a room-temperature IQ is going to be fooled by your dishonest attempt to sneak that in in place of your earlier false accusations of rape and pedophilia.

And in the end, what stands out the most is that while you are so fond of making such outrageous accusations against those you wish to discredit, you defend those who really are undeniably guilty of the very crimes of which you falsely accuse others.

You're not just dishonest; you're not just evil; you're incredibly stupid to believe that you can lie as blatantly as you do, and retain any vestige of credibility.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Don't read anything I write, just place me on ignore. Do you think I post for people with your attitude? No. I know people read every word I write…

You're an admitted Communist. You cannot possibly have anything to say that is worth any sane, intelligent person's time and effort to read. Certainly nothing that is worth trying to read the huge, incoherent walls of word salad that you've been posting here.

 

[themirrorthief]

Wow, it's fun to watch the Doomsday Cult drink the koolaid.

The same people who spent 70 million dollars proving Bill Clinton lied about getting a blow job are the ones whining that Trump is getting a bad deal for walking off with FIFTEEN BOXES of sensitive documents.

I have several boxes of old comic books...should I be worried the fbi is coming for them too

 

[GWV5903]

You're the idiot for thinking the reason people become communists is for the silly reason you're asserting.

You have to be the village idiot to believe Communism is a better way for society to live, it’s failed miserably….

 

[Mac-7]

So you are a tad confused...

If there were wage and price controls, then wages didn't really go up.

When you have a sudden influx of returning vets looking for jobs, that should have brought labor costs down. But it didn't because FDR instituted fair wage laws and supported unionization.

Wage and price controls were an effort to control wages

Sometmes it worked but often the free market was more nimble than government

 

[Red Front]

Wage and price controls were an effort to control wages

Sometmes it worked but often the free market was more nimble than government

More "nimble" in serving the interests of employers at the expense of their employees.

 

[Mac-7]

More "nimble" in serving the interests of employers at the expense of their employees.

You misunderstand history

Wage and price controls were trying to hold wages down

 

[Red Front]

You misunderstand history

Wage and price controls were trying to hold wages down

How so? How do you figure that?