Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How come communist agitation is legal in (of all places) the USA?
There are so many openly communist organizations in the country. Their leaders are publicly known, who they are, what they do or did.
Agitating people to create violent riots seems to be free speech?
Even putting up a website with communist ideology should be prosecuted.
Communism is the opposite of American liberty and legal system, basically it is against the constitution and the law. It should be dealt with like other crimes (robbery, rape, murder...).
Communism is as dead as elvis. It's kinda like worrying about the religious group in the 1800's that believed you shouldn't have kids. (hint: they died out)
I'm glad my government isn't spending any money worrying about them let alone tracking, prosecuting or incarcerating them and denying the country some organic veggies or maybe a tatoo or whatnot.
People's contribution can vary hugely. that is why it would be unjust. Except if all work in a mine without special tools. Then their contributions would be roughly the same, except for physical strength related differences like 1:2. For example in making movies, the guy who holds the lamp should not take home as much as the visionary movie director. The mental revenue generating abilities of people vary on the scale of 1:1000000 in extreme cases, in a typical office it varies 1:10 within the same job title.
I imagine you've heard the phrase "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Marx used this to explain what communism is, more or less.
In fairness, my equal pay example isn't technically the full truth. In fact, Marx's ideal was a society without any money. Really, it's just an issue of compete public ownership of all things. I'll admit my mistakes though; that was a poor method of demonstrating it.
To answer your general question, Marx believed that, thanks to industrialized technology, we could produce in abundance, meeting all people's needs. While it's true that in a scenario, guy A might be a better farmer than guy B, but both are still farming and the combination of the crops from guys A, B, C, and D is more than enough to feed the whole population. Ultimately, Marx argues that given the abundance, it hardly matters if guy A technically produced more corn; both produced plenty and both should have their needs met.
Marx would likely add that what those "needs" are can depend on when you are. It starts with the essentials, but as abundance and efficiency grows, what is provided for the common good likely increases as well. How feasible is it? Well, I don't know. Or care; we're dealing with something entirely abstract as a communist society that Marx would actually endorse has never really existed.
Correct, by federal law, it is illegal to organize and be a member of a communist party in the US. However, the Act has never been enforced by the feds, and a federal district has ruled the Act is unconstitutional. If the Act was ever enforced, it will be struck down as being unconstitutional, a presedent that has already been set at the district level.
There is a communist party in the US, there are active members:
Communism is an economic system, it cannot be for or against the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not mention economics, it does not mention mixed market, capitalism, etc. There is also no one set definition of communism, there are numerous opinions and thoughts on what communism is, but the basics of it is; the property/means of production is controlled by the state. There are also many who even state taxes are a form of communism, in that the production is taken by the state, thus the state is not controlling the means of production, but forcefully taken its share of the production. I think it was Friedman who even stated (in summary) we can measure how communist a society is by their tax rates.
The reason communism ends up as a brutal dictatorship every single time is, it requires such a system to enforce the regulations that would make communism exist. Communism is against the natural ways humans interact in the world, and it takes brutality to counter this human nature.
Communism in itself in theory can exist under any political system.
So, tell me... If Communism can exist in any political system...
How do you implement Communism and not violate the individual liberties?
What I see is what is common misdirection by playing word smithing to avoid dealing with the fact that communism is incompatible with the sovereign individual, it is incompatible with the basic design of this country which was founded specifically on individual liberty.
Was it Einstein that said if you can't explain something concisely, you don't understand it.
I guess I'll just shiver at your intellectual superiority that you're decided to keep to yourself.
The problem is that your entire understanding is based on numerous layerings of falsities. It means we would have to start at the beginning and go through design of this country, the ratification debates and what the founders intended, the history of Communism, Marx and his motives, etc...
You are misinformed on ALL of them to the point where you will diligently argue every single mention at every single point making any attempt to explain this a waste of time.
The fact is, you are too far gone, there is no hope for you to understand as if you truly were interested in the facts of these issues, you would have encountered them long ago.
The problem is that your entire understanding is based on numerous layerings of falsities. It means we would have to start at the beginning and go through design of this country, the ratification debates and what the founders intended, the history of Communism, Marx and his motives, etc...
You are misinformed on ALL of them to the point where you will diligently argue every single mention at every single point making any attempt to explain this a waste of time.
The fact is, you are too far gone, there is no hope for you to understand as if you truly were interested in the facts of these issues, you would have encountered them long ago.
/shrug
Again, what is the point of talking if you're going to say nothing. You literally responded with the same content, you just made it wordier. You say I'm wrong don't even scratch the surface as to why. Example: you say I'm wrong about Marx's motives. To my knowledge, the only thing I've stated on this thread about that is that he lived during the industrial revolution, where he saw workers being exploited and this was the reaction he had to it. Do you know how easy that would be to disprove? Find a primary source of him saying his motives were something else, and boom! You can now say I'm wrong without sounding like a fraud.
Then again, I never said it was his only motive. It's just the motive I brought up as I do see it as the most reasonably true motive.
Basically, put your money where your mouth is or shut the hell up. You just sound like an arrogant tit. "I could explain but you wouldn't understand..." Who the **** wants to hear that? Have you any friends with an attitude like that?
So, tell me... If Communism can exist in any political system...
How do you implement Communism and not violate the individual liberties?
How do you implement rule of law without violating in individual liberty? Contrary to popular belief, the concept of liberty is not scientific, nor "self evident" as many claim it to be. Many assert that the concept of the social contract violates people's rights as they have no choice but to consent upon birth. What's your defense of that?
And you do have to defend it. If you're defending republican government as being the guardian of liberty, you have to answer the question as to how the social contract is justifiable.
When you say "the people want", what it really means is majority oppressing minority. Minority this time is the productive class. See elections resulting communist governments in third world countries, the productive middle class minority in those places are horrified and supporting dictatorships. What the [majority of the] people want is not always legitimate.
I missed this post earlier...
You'll get no argument from me on the last sentence. I'm strongly against democracy and believe in 100% individual sovereignty, as if each person is their own country. The majority has no right to impose their will on you and take your stuff just because they outnumber you.
Anyone who believes in self-ownership and rejects the collective essentially owning you, and what belongs to you, should support that.
So basically, if people want to form their own communist society, fine, as long as everyone is participating by choice. I would never do it, but I have no right to stop people who do...unless they decide to force others into it. In that case, they are the aggressors and stopping them would be the defense of innocent people.
So, tell me... If Communism can exist in any political system...
How do you implement Communism and not violate the individual liberties?
What I see is what is common misdirection by playing word smithing to avoid dealing with the fact that communism is incompatible with the sovereign individual, it is incompatible with the basic design of this country which was founded specifically on individual liberty.
What does that have to do with the Constitution?
Slavery existed under the US Constitution, women were denied the right to vote under the US Constitution; yet you cannot comprehend how a communist economic model can exist? The US Constitution does not address economics, it does not state "the US is a capitalist country."
The basics of communism "the means of production controlled by the state", means of production is property ownership, so property ownership is by the state and not the individual. There is no violation of the Constitution for the gov to control the means of production. Property rights are coded in federal regulations, not in the Constitution. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence was actually "Life, liberty, and property" by Locke.
You think you own your property? Try not paying property taxes and just see how much ownership you have in your property. Explain to me the difference between the government owning a means of production, and the government directing taxes to support specific industries. Hell, the federal gov purchased tens of millions of GM stocks; is that not ownership?
No word smithing is going on, you are failing to understand the difference between what a model of government is, and what a model of economics is, and that they can exist with each other. You mention communism is counter to the Constitution and to liberty, yet fail to address how under the Constitution slavery was allowed to exist, denying liberty to numerous people.
As I stated in my previous post; communism is a blanket term that comprises of many theories, but the basics is the gov owns the means of production. It is an economical model, and to an extent a property ownership model. Sending people to the gulag, one party systems, and mass executions have nothing to do with communism, those things have occurred under non-communist systems as well.
Communism in itself naturally takes the heavy hand of government to implement, because people naturally are inclined to engage in capitalism, this is what Locke speaks to in his philosophy. As a human, I naturally want to create, and to retain the fruits of my labor. Under the communist system, the fruits of the labor belong to the state, and is doled out (the familiar from each according to his ability, to each according to his means). This is why economist like Friedman make assumptions about taxes and communism, as taxes is a form of the gov taking the fruits of a person's labor, and distributing it not just for functioning of the state, but to those according to their needs, and that we can measure how communist a society is not by who controls the means of production, but by what degree the gov takes the fruit of labor.
The basics of communism "the means of production controlled by the state",
That is hair splitting. If you want to be so historically precise, then you are right. But means of production was just a means to an end, as seen in the 19th century. Now in 2016 we don't have much production, most of the wealth is generated in services, finance, entertainment. But, as I have mentioned, the core of communism (or the end to any means they can come up with) as an ideology is to take from those who have and give it to those don't have, actually in a way that the "have not's" will not have to ask for it every time neither have to say thank you (just assume they are entitled to it, or even have power/control over it).
Communism is the elimination of basic liberties (that is what it has to do with Constitution), therefore its goal (here in the US) is to overthrow the government and justice system. That is why so many communists were placed in the justice department.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
