Commie sign-in thread

[Zenman]

Commies please sign in and explain, if you would, why you would prefer more force and coercion rather than more liberty and freedom and such.

Not really trying to put you on the spot--I'm truly curious.

Socialists are welcome to sign in too.

Thanks

[onan]

Commies please sign in and explain, if you would, why you would prefer more force and coercion rather than more liberty and freedom and such.

Not really trying to put you on the spot--I'm truly curious.

Socialists are welcome to sign in too.

Thanks

It's the Jesus thing to do. It is quite nice of you, however, to couch the argument with such an open mind.

[Yorkshire pud]

Commies please sign in and explain, if you would, why you would prefer more force and coercion rather than more liberty and freedom and such.

Not really trying to put you on the spot--I'm truly curious.

Socialists are welcome to sign in too.

Thanks

You need to define what you think a communist is before asking the loaded question. Because I suspect what you think it is, isn't what it really is.

[AvDaBr]

I think Jesus commanded that his followers give to the poor and all that good stuff instead of them demanding their overlords do so.

[Value Of Pi]

Re: Commie Sign-In. That one's okay. You're better at this than MV.

[Yorkshire pud]

I think Jesus commanded that his followers give to the poor and all that good stuff instead of them demanding their overlords do so.

Yeah, but he was a liberal/commie/ socialist Jew. Oh, and a refugee. Damn. 

[onan]

I think Jesus commanded that his followers give to the poor and all that good stuff instead of them demanding their overlords do so.

I think you need a much better understanding of the jesus.

[Value Of Pi]

Yeah, but he was a liberal/commie/ socialist Jew. Oh, and a refugee. Damn. 

First, he was a Jew. All the honorary titles came later -- and I doubt he would have wanted any of them. So I doubt we'll see him on this thread.

[Yorkshire pud]

First, he was a Jew. All the honorary titles came later -- and I doubt he would have wanted any of them. So I doubt we'll see him on this thread.

You don't think he'd like to be seen as liberal minded? What do you suggest; fascist? All that equality stuff and eschuing wealth for wealths sake wasn't his thing after all? He needed better PR maybe, because his standing didn't do him any favours in the end.

[Zenman]

You need to define what you think a communist is before asking the loaded question. Because I suspect what you think it is, isn't what it really is.

You're right. I should narrow it down a bit. I guess I'm asking the question of communists or socialists who'd require gov't to enforce their collectivist wants. So I guess I'd exclude, for example, anarcho-communist type folk.

Also I suppose I'm not really making a distinction between communists and socialists for the purposes of my question. Thanks.

[Value Of Pi]

You don't think he'd like to be seen as liberal minded? What do you suggest; fascist? All that equality stuff and eschuing wealth for wealths sake wasn't his thing after all? He needed better PR maybe, because his standing didn't do him any favours in the end.

I don't think he'd want to be seen as anything other than what and who he said he was. And even with all the symbolism and the parables, he was pretty clear about that. People were quick to adopt him and adapt him to their needs, however. Politics hasn't done religion any favors over the centuries.

[Zenman]

I think Jesus commanded that his followers give to the poor and all that good stuff instead of them demanding their overlords do so.

I would also welcome those who would wish the Lord to enforce their collectivist wants to sign in.

[Yorkshire pud]

You're right. I should narrow it down a bit. I guess I'm asking the question of communists or socialists who'd require gov't to enforce their collectivist wants.

Hmmm. But they don't, that's the thing. The government is the people. The clue is in the name. Communism (which has never to my knowledge ever been in place in any country) has no elite. Every person has equal standing no matter who they are, what they do, which family they're born to or what house they live in. China has an elite, as does N Korea, as did the USSR. The respective elite told/tell the huddled masses they're all the 'people', but like Animal Farm, some are more people than others.

So I guess I'd exclude, for example, anarcho-communist type folk.

Also I suppose I'm not really making a distinction between communists and socialists for the purposes of my question. Thanks.

No, you're not.

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't think he'd want to be seen as anything other than what and who he said he was. And even with all the symbolism and the parables, he was pretty clear about that. People were pretty quick to adopt him and adapt him to their needs, however. Politics hasn't done religion any favors over the centuries.

Oh they're inseparable with very few exceptions. Religion has been used centuries past and still is used as a political tool to keep the masses in line. The Catholic and Anglican churchs are alive and very much kicking in Irish politics, and Scottish football sectarianism. Africa uses religion for political leverage, as does all the Middle East, as do great deal of certain US states. Creationism taken seriously as an academic subject in Texas schools? Really?

[onan]

I see lots of people that are loaded with freedom and nothing else. Kinda like the song "Freedom is just another word..."

There seems to be little consideration for the difference in living in a free society and leave me the fuck alone. Yes there is vast amounts of room between those points.

There seems to be little discrimination between socialism and communism, they aren't the same thing.

I realize that my opinion is only mine, so here it is: We are all better off if we are all better off. Yes it is complicated and yes it can be very frustrating. So let's just chuck it and watch another episode of Jersey Wives with our best friend, beer.

[Meister_000]

. . . collectivist wants . . .

There's some food for thought relative to this discussion (as well as the issue of selecting and defining terms), in this article as well as in some of the follow-up comments at the bottum of the page.
http://alt-market.com/articles/1437-are-individuals-the-property-of-the-collective

I will add that, the authors understanding of the history of Blank Slate theory (aka Tabula Rasa) is wanting, see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

Also, one comment blames Kant for all our problems when it was he specifically who overthrew  the old Tabula Rasa model of mind (John Locke's iteration of it in particular).

Most pertinent perhaps in the article and later comments is its pointing-out the need to distinguish between "The Collective" and "The Community" when comparing to "The Individual" -- for clearity in terms, concepts, and communication.

Promises to be an interesting thread Zenman.

[Value Of Pi]

Oh they're inseparable with very few exceptions. Religion has been used centuries past and still is used as a political tool to keep the masses in line. The Catholic and Anglican churchs are alive and very much kicking in Irish politics, and Scottish football sectarianism. Africa uses religion for political leverage, as does all the Middle East, as do great deal of certain US states. Creationism taken seriously as an academic subject in Texas schools? Really?

Yes, indeed. Possibly some of the Eastern religions have suffered from less co-option and corruption by the political class and political movements. The Dalai Lama seems to have much less baggage than the Pope and the Catholic Church, for example. And how will politics and Judaism reconcile with each other; that's a very testy relationship in Israel, in Jerusalem, where the Temple Jesus prayed in once stood.

[Yorkshire pud]

Yes, indeed. Possibly some of the Eastern religions have suffered from less co-option and corruption by the political class and political movements. The Dalai Lama seems to have much less baggage than the Pope and the Catholic Church, for example. And how will politics and Judaism reconcile with each other; that's a very testy relationship in Israel, in Jerusalem, where the Temple Jesus prayed in once stood.

India's political system (the biggest democracy in the world) falls down religious lines. Pakistan's definitely does, but not much room for opposition there! Indonesia, Malaysia pretty much Muslim. Thailand has a god/king who's thought police won't tolerate any dissent whatsoever, not even mild chiding. If you look at things objectively, the nations/societies that have a very strong conservative (with a small c) religious/political marriage, are the least tolerant of those who are not the 'norm' and often treat women as second class citizens.

[GravitySucks]

Let's see how long it takes Darth Sandra to show up.

I wonder if North Korea's firewalls allow access to BellGab.

[Juan]

Most commits on this board don't admit it.

What is with Apple?  This iPad won't let me type the shortened form of communist.

[FightTheFuture]

So let's just chuck it and watch another episode of Jersey Wives with our best friend, beer.

I typically enjoy a nice Italian pinot grigio when viewing the "Wives"

[Jackstar]

What is with Apple?

Their logo is an apple with a bite out of it. I'm not sure how this could be more clear, without being profane.

[Juan]

Their logo is an apple with a bite out of it. I'm not sure how this could be more clear, without being profane.

Yes

[Zenman]

Hmmm. But they don't, that's the thing. The government is the people. The clue is in the name. Communism (which has never to my knowledge ever been in place in any country) has no elite. Every person has equal standing no matter who they are, what they do, which family they're born to or what house they live in. China has an elite, as does N Korea, as did the USSR. The respective elite told/tell the huddled masses they're all the 'people', but like Animal Farm, some are more people than others.

Many of the socialists I know do want gov't to determine how much of my income I'm required to give to the programs they like and how much I have to pay my employees and such. Most of them I think wouldn't admit to being communists but I suspect some wouldn't have a problem with the gov't controlling the means of production and such as well.

The type of communism you describe hasn't and doesn't exist because it's utopian. It would work if everyone on Earth were of the exact same mind--if there were no folks on a power trip, no one was greedy and no a-holes exited and everyone was cooperative. We have quite a bit of evolving to do before we get there.

[Zenman]

I see lots of people that are loaded with freedom and nothing else. Kinda like the song "Freedom is just another word..."

There seems to be little consideration for the difference in living in a free society and leave me the fuck alone. Yes there is vast amounts of room between those points.

There seems to be little discrimination between socialism and communism, they aren't the same thing.

They aren't the same thing, but they are both forms of collectivism and, it can be argued, both forms of anti-freedom. Just degrees. Both want me to be forced to pay for the things they want. They're both philosophies of force and coercion, not liberty.

[21st Century Man]

I believe in charity and I have been charitable; however, I don't want the government forcibly taking money from me and redistributing it to people and causes that are wasteful and repugnant to me.  Communism and socialism are an anathema to me.  I don't mind paying taxes for infrastructure and defense but I do not support the welfare state.  I imagine I could have gotten several thousand dollars from the government this year if I chose to but then I would be a hypocrite.

Plus, at least in our society, regular folks have some say about who they want to represent them in government.  In some socialist societies and all communist societies, the elites still have their power and wealth and there is absolutely no check on them. Such states as they exist on Earth are for the most part totalitarian   Hitler and Stalin are prime examples.

[Zenman]

There's some food for thought relative to this discussion (as well as the issue of selecting and defining terms), in this article as well as in some of the follow-up comments at the bottum of the page.
http://alt-market.com/articles/1437-are-individuals-the-property-of-the-collective

I will add that, the authors understanding of the history of Blank Slate theory (aka Tabula Rasa) is wanting, see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

Also, one comment blames Kant for all our problems when it was he specifically who overthrew  the old Tabula Rasa model of mind (John Locke's iteration of it in particular).

Most pertinent perhaps in the article and later comments is its pointing-out the need to distinguish between "The Collective" and "The Community" when comparing to "The Individual" -- for clearity in terms, concepts, and communication.

Promises to be an interesting thread Zenman.

Meister, are you a libertarian?

[onan]

They aren't the same thing, but they are both forms of collectivism and, it can be argued, both forms of anti-freedom. Just degrees. Both want me to be forced to pay for the things they want. They're both philosophies of force and coercion, not liberty.

Since when did you get the idea you can live in a society and have everything your way?

[chefist]

Lol...who were the first to jump in and defend Communism? :-)

[Sandra Kristen]

Let's see how long it takes Darth Sandra to show up.

I wonder if North Korea's firewalls allow access to BellGab.

I don't really come to this forum very much as I, believe it or not, don't like to discuss politics on the internet.