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.
Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.
By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.
In your opinion who are the top two most influential
Communists in America today?
Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.
By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.
In your opinion who are the top two most influential
Communists in America today?
Can you cite an example where your opening fallacy is operating today?
Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.
By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.
In your opinion who are the top two most influential
Communists in America today?
This is what happens when people don’t know what they’re talking about…
Quote:
Next came the beginning of formal courses, the first of which was entitled the History of the Development of Society. This course was followed by: Lenin—The State; Materialistic Dialectics; History of the Chinese Revolution; Theory of the New Democracy— Maoism; and Field Study—visits to old Communist workshops and industrial centers. A leading Communist theorist came from Peking to deliver the opening lecture (there was just one lecture for each course). This talk was a memorable one: for more than five hours the distinguished visitor presented a carefully-documented exposi- tion of Marxist views on organic evolution (the emergence of man from lower primates by means of labor, or as a popular pamphlet put it: "From monkey to man, through labor"), and on social evo- lution (the development of human society from its primitive com- munist stage through subsequent "slave/' "feudal," "capitalist," "socialist," and inevitable "Communist" stages). The thousand stu- dents in the audience listened carefully, and took copious notes. There were no interruptions and no questions at the end.
This is very entertaining. I suspect I'm the only person on this thread who has an extended family member who is a card carrying member of the American Communist party.
And I have another relative who could o longer escape attending their annual New Year's Eve party. They were not impressed. A bunch of old hippies drinking cheap booze was their take on it.
You guys have no clue. If you did, you would never believe the American Communist have the power to influence anything or anybody.
By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.
Incorrect.
Here is a snippet from Webster's lovely (and useful) dictionary:
Socialism:
a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Notice how it is in direct contradiction to your "definition." Before we can have a discussion of "communism" and "socialism," we would be best off getting our definitions of what they are straightened out. Some of us like to try to make that old sow look better by applying lipstick, mascara, and eyeliner. But she's just not that good looking either way, is she?
As for the question: take your pick of just about any of the influential democrats today. If any of them could snap their fingers and change our government, we would be a communist nation... well, in the snap of the fingers. Of course, communism and socialism is just a fancy rebranding of the same old crap the world has had since the first monkey decided to be a man: tyranny. One group of people deciding they are somehow special and should have dominion over another group. Call it what you like, but that's what it boils down to. Just feudalism on a grand scale. Slavery with the added feature that we are trying to make the slaves not recognize that they are slaves.
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.
