They're such children who just don't know. Not nearly as enlightened as Democrats, amirite?
from the wiki. you might want to pay particular attention to the bolded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
In Marxist thought, communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of communism. A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.
Communism is a specific stage of socioeconomic development predicated upon a superabundance of material wealth, which is postulated to arise from advances in production technology and corresponding changes in the social relations of production. This would allow for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals.
The term communist society should be distinguished from the Western concept of the communist state, the latter referring to a state ruled by a party which professes a variation of Marxism–Leninism.
They're such children who just don't know. Not nearly as enlightened as Democrats, amirite?
No, plenty of stupid democrats too. Though, you certainly are the poster child of republicans that hate to be called republican...
Jewpedia gonna set me straight
Differentiating between communism and communist state is like differentiating between HIV and AIDS.
I don't care if you call me it. I'm just stating the fact that I'm not one. But I get that you need to cope with that somehow.
my post was just "libertarian", because it's not libertarian, you're the one that seemed to take issue with that one word in quotes
well yeah. and if you read about "communist states" they talk about the single party rule states who's official objective is the implementation of socialism and communism.
so the USSR was undoubtedly run by a "communist party" which had a stated intention of actually implementing communism, but never reached that end. you could argue (and i'd almost certainly agree) that the concept of a communist society is an unrealistic/unpragmatic utopia with no shot at being successfully implemented, at least anytime in the foreseeable future, if ever
but that doesnt mean the USSR ever actually fostered a communist society. they didnt de-commodify their economy, they didnt abolish social class, they certainly didnt abolish the state. the primary function of public ins utions didnt shift away from lawmaking and control of people.
Last edited by spurraider21; 09-28-2020 at 02:07 AM.
The only one on the defensive here is you, not me.
lol good luck with that
Yea, you really got me on my heels.
In your own words in a line or two, what do you think communism is?
to keep in very brief, communism is a theoretical organization of society that abolishes social class, money, and the state... made possible by technological advancement and industrialization to the point where there is a surplus of the goods, and there is no longer a need for people's lives to primarily be about trading labor for wages merely to meet subsistence levels
the shortest description would probably be a rejection of hierarchy. not far off from anarchism (not to be confused with the meme of anarcho-capitalism which is i guess libertarianism taken to its extreme... though i reject the contention that it is actually a type of anarchism, but its nevertheless the label)
If you say do
And yet it always comes down to the haves and have nots in terms of political class in breakneck speed. Also, even on it's face it ignores the value of wages for labor. Frankly, it ignores incentive and opportunity across the board. In other words, it's a scam, Lite.
Thanks for being honest and all. But at dat "surface level political knowledge" you're putting on display.
well yeah. from their perspective, we have a starting point (capitalism) that has unjust hierarchy between the haves and have-nots. thats kind of the point. its a rejection of capitalism. that's not a revelation
this literally couldn't be more wrong. marx's critique was that capitalism is inherently inequitable and ignores the true value of labor.Also, even on it's face it ignores the value of wages for labor.
ie i am a business owner who manufactures chairs. i buy the raw materials for a chair worth $20. i pay a carpenter to turn those materials into a chair. i'm able to sell the chair for $50 due to his labor. therefore, his labor added $30 value to the product. however, by the very nature of capitalism, i could not profit, and thus the business would collapse, if i paid the carpenter the full $30 value of his wages. so i pay him $15 for his labor (pocket the other $15) while his labor was actually worth $30.
this is called the labor theory of value and is one of the central tenets of marxism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value). i'm not saying you have to subscribe to it... but to suggest that it ignores the value of labor literally couldnt be more wrong
not really. the idea behind communism is that it becomes viable when technological and industrial conditions are such that we already have a surplus of supply.Frankly, it ignores incentive and opportunity across the board. In other words, it's a scam, Lite.
and dialing it back to socialism as opposed to communism, there is nothing inherently against the profit motive there. socialism just means that the means of production are either owned by the workers (ie rather than an owner who makes profits while employees make wages, the workers of a factory collectively own it... we already have those voluntarily, called worker cooperatives... look into the Mondragon Corporation) or socially by the general public (ie Norway nationalizing its oil production).
you specifically asked for my explanation to be "in a line or two" and the complain that the definition is simplistic or surface-level?Thanks for being honest and all. But at dat "surface level political knowledge" you're putting on display.
Last edited by spurraider21; 09-28-2020 at 02:44 AM.
Need a youtube video with a poster of the world behind a chair, maybe an American flag
im not a socialist or communist anyway (i find capitalism to be hyper-productive, and just think regulated capitalism with more redistribution and broader safety nets would adequately address most of the critiques of capitalism), and i particularly have no sympathies for leninism/maoism (the concept of a "vanguard party" to usher in the age of communism, etc)... but i'm at least read up on them enough to carry a discussion more nuanced that "communism = gulags and tyranny lolz"
admittedly havent done any academic reading on political theory since college, but brush up from time to time online. wikipedia is a solid starting point.
There Should Be No Doubt Why Trump Nominated Amy Coney Barrett
a year before Barrett’s birth, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., then a prominent lawyer in Richmond, Virginia, and later a Supreme Court Justice himself,
wrote a now famous memorandum to the United States Chamber of Commerce, arguing that businesses needed to take a more aggressive hand in shaping public policy.
“The American economic system is under broad attack,” he wrote, from, specifically,
the consumer,
environmental, and
labor movements.
He added that “the campus is the single most dynamic source” of that attack.
To counter it, Powell suggested that business interests should make a major financial commitment to shaping universities,
so that the “bright young men” of tomorrow would hear messages of
support for the free-enterprise system.
A little less than a decade later, a pair of law professors named Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia signed on as the first faculty advisers to a fledgling organization for conservative law students called the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.
The efforts of the Federalist Society were lavishly funded by the business interests invoked by Powell, and
it has trained a generation or two of future leaders.
Barrett, and her confirmation would vindicate Powell’s plan and transform the Supreme Court.
She will probably do well in providing the artful non-answers
that are the currency of Supreme Court confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, just as she did in 2017.
her legal writings, and the views of some who know her, suggest that she would overturn Roe.
an animating passion of McConnell’s career has been
the deregulation of political campaigns.
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision brought the issue to wide public attention,
but McConnell has been crusading about it for decades.
He wants the money spigot kept open, so that he can protect his Senate majority and the causes for which it stands.
The corporate interests funding the growth of the Federalist Society probably weren’t especially interested in abortion,
but they were almost certainly committed to crippling the regulatory state.
she has received about seven thousand dollars in honoraria from the Federalist Society and
went on ten trips funded by it.
But it’s not as if Barrett was bought; she was already sold.
In the real world, they operate as
an agenda
to crush labor unions,
curtail environmental regulation,
constrain the voting rights of minorities,
limit government support for health care, and
free the wealthy to buy political influence.
The war on abortion is just the start.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily...-coney-barrett
I think it's as simple as Trump just pandering to his base
please elaborate
I'm going to posit the dying wish for most was to not die.
libertarians are republicans who dont actively hate gays and weed
or they're republicans who just dont want to call themselves republicans (ben shapiro)
His base didn't recommend Barrett, very probably Leonard Leo and/or Barr did
As a fringe Catholic cultist known to be anti-female, she satisfies the blood-thirst of Trash's base of forced-birthers and anti-contraceptive-ists. They are collateral, whose votes are valued, who not valued as people. Same with Blacks.
The oligarchy strategic game is as listed: Labor, the environment, enfeeble govt, destroy "the administrative state", destroy anything and everything for more Capital, and privatize everything that's left.
True libertarians are also pro choice. Ron Paul hijacked libertarianism and made it so people thought being libertarian meant pro life - Barry Goldwater was more or less the founding father of modern libertarianism and he was as pro choice as it gets.
Goldwater rejected everything about the religious right for that matter, he called them zealots who were impossible to deal with.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)