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.
Despite the obvious red scare propaganda (the equating of Afro-Asian Asabiya revolutionary commies & socialists like the Maoists & El NASSERIYA with paleo & neo-national socialists is ridculous), interesting article.
Could you at least list on the fingers of your left hand the countries actually practicing any actual, undiluted form of that theology today?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Didn't think so.
I don't think it matters if there's no country that adheres to that idea perfectly. You still see it everywhere...the idea that people are entitled to something because they need it.
No one really says it that way, but I always see them arguing that certain things are "rights", even when that "right" places an obligation on others to provide it.
The only confusion is that which communists promulgate to hide their predation.
It's quite simple.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If a government can TAKE from one to GIVE to another (minus a cut for the management), it is communist / marxist / socialist / collectivist / whateverist.
NOTE: "capitalism" only applies to PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of the tools of production (land, etc) - not banks nor corporations (though they like to pretend they're capitalists).
If the government can take it from you, without paying JUST COMPENSATION, it's not private property. And if private property is abolished, connect the dots.
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
If government takes a share, it's not privately owned as private property.
Welcome to the People's Democratic Socialist Republic, a full service (benevolent) totalitarian police state since 1933.
Again to be clear on definitions given so much effort by the academia & media propaganda wing of the globalist plantation system to maintain its monopoly over culture & identity to in the goal of creating a world plantation utopia, its time to revisit a few issues.
Even before Stalin made it official, the commies moved away from calling themselves Marxists as in followers of the Britannic based German Jewish Commie, Karl Marx, though they did not deny there was some influence nor that he did a lot in popularizing commie & revolutionary socialist thought.
Unlike Marx, with the Lenistas, there was no ambiguity on where they stood with regards to imperialism as well as its settler & slaver sidekick from the man-children collaborators & the ultimate liquidation of the globalist plantation system.
Despite the (deliberate?) mistranslations & misinformations, those in the Soviet sphere in general (as well as Ho & Chou of Bandung fame, though Chairman Mao tried to build off that base to establish his own brand) IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS LENISTAS, though admittedly, there were some sharp deviations when it comes to the Stalinists.
Check out the reference to Rhodes & the Cape to Cairo.
Does private property ownership really exist? Don’t pay your property tax and the government will take it from you. We’re really just renting it.
Really, we don't own anything...including our own bodies, technically. If the state is the ultimate decider of what you are or aren't allowed to own, and they can take it from you if they rule that they're allowed to... they're the owner.
That's what an owner is - the person/people who have the highest claim to something. We're the legitimate owners of ourselves, the things we create, trade for, or have given to us, but in practice, the state owns everything within its ("its") borders.
Communism and socialism are economic systems, not political ones.
The definition of socialism is collective (in practice government) ownership of the means of production (i.e. farms, factories, warehouses, stores, etc.)
The definition of communism is the elimination of private property, i.e. the collective (in practice government) owns everything.
Notice that word 'government' in both definitions. So yes, they are political systems, by definition. They are both economic AND political.
Again to be clear on definitions given so much effort by the academia & media propaganda wing of the globalist plantation system to maintain its monopoly over culture & identity to in the goal of creating a world plantation utopia, its time to revisit a few issues.
I'm lost already. Can you explain this post?
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.
