|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2020 19:05:46 GMT
No. I'm drinking the cool aid of what dictionary says communism is instead of going with made up definitions. If you can show me how the US has a command economy in which the most of the means of production are state owned, I'll accept the conception that the US is a communist country. We are talking past each other. YOU think communism is a sincere well-meaning ideology. I don't. A communist or socialist type society might work on a very small scale-like a small town, but that's the same with capitalism too. A community-based business or economic structure. There's accountability. But Marxism or Communism is different. The purpose is to attack the healthiest members of a society and replace them with a hive that answers to an un-elected minority that governs without concern for majority interests.
The US is a communist-leaning country--the big trans-national corporations that manipulate the government all lean left, not right. They support open borders, forced diversity, censorship--all communist dogma. The RINOs also support open borders, forced diversity, wars against nation states. It is fact that George W Bush and his father would have been called Communists in 1960 for the things they spoke of in the late 80s-90s. You are only thinking about economics--most assessments of Communism focus on things besides money--because, as I said, an irish nationalist politician said "the false choice of Marx or Money." The talking points have been reduced to those dictated by the establishment (which is something Solzhenitsyn warned about in his 1978 Harvard address btw). There are other things to worry about besides Marx or Money. Like community health, ethics, culture...
I think its safe to say the old Russian guy knew something about Communism and how it worked-and he also said the US was swinging towards communism.
Where did I say communism is a well meaning ideology? Because I don't think that. Of course we are talking about economics. That's pretty much the whole thing of communism vs capitalism. It's economics. Since the US doesn't have a command economy or are the means of production state owned, the country can't be communist by definition. Open borders is irrelevant for the discussion. Free trade agreements like NAFTA or TTP were pretty much designed by uber capitalists that think protectionism and different trade laws get in the way of them making a profit. North Korea doesn't have open borders. Are they capitalist? Hell there are libertarians who are for open borders because they see it as the government overreach and they aren't communists either.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 29, 2020 19:42:13 GMT
Where did I say communism is a well meaning ideology? Because I don't think that. Of course we are talking about economics. That's pretty much the whole thing of communism vs capitalism. It's economics. Since the US doesn't have a command economy or are the means of production state owned, the country can't be communist by definition. Open borders is irrelevant for the discussion. Free trade agreements like NAFTA or TTP were pretty much designed by uber capitalists that think protectionism and different trade laws get in the way of them making a profit. North Korea doesn't have open borders. Are they capitalist? Hell there are libertarians who are for open borders because they see it as the government overreach and they aren't communists either. No it isn't just about economics. Did McCarthy or Patton talk about economics when they said Communism was spreading?
They were talking about human issues, not money.
Free trade was designed by uber communists. BIG Capitalism in the Rockefeller style is no different from Communism-they are fed by the same tough.
Rockefeller the anti-Nazi was funding experiments on poor people in Guatemala. When Salk did experiments on mental patients, the Rockefeller defended him by saying "some goodie" organization would oppose.
Communists are fake humanitarians.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2020 19:49:50 GMT
Where did I say communism is a well meaning ideology? Because I don't think that. Of course we are talking about economics. That's pretty much the whole thing of communism vs capitalism. It's economics. Since the US doesn't have a command economy or are the means of production state owned, the country can't be communist by definition. Open borders is irrelevant for the discussion. Free trade agreements like NAFTA or TTP were pretty much designed by uber capitalists that think protectionism and different trade laws get in the way of them making a profit. North Korea doesn't have open borders. Are they capitalist? Hell there are libertarians who are for open borders because they see it as the government overreach and they aren't communists either. No it isn't just about economics. Did McCarthy or Patton talk about economics when they said Communism was spreading?
They were talking about human issues, not money.
Free trade was designed by uber communists. BIG Capitalism in the Rockefeller style is no different from Communism-they are fed by the same tough.
Rockefeller the anti-Nazi was funding experiments on poor people in Guatemala. When Salk did experiments on mental patients, the Rockefeller defended him by saying "some goodie" organization would oppose.
Communists are fake humanitarians.
Saying that communism is spreading doesn't mean squat in regards to communism being an ideology in which the main framework is about re-organizing the economy from a capitalist one to a communist one. Particulary who owns the means of production. Free trade wasn't designed by uber communists. More by uber capitalists since it's people that own the capital who end up benefiting from free trade. Not the average worker. And Rockefeller was a capitalist too.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 29, 2020 20:01:17 GMT
Saying that communism is spreading doesn't mean squat in regards to communism being an ideology in which the main framework is about re-organizing the economy from a capitalist one to a communist one. Particulary who owns the means of production. Free trade wasn't designed by uber communists. More by uber capitalists since it's people that own the capital who end up benefiting from free trade. Not the average worker. And Rockefeller was a capitalist too. "Marx or Money." Communism is not about money--it is about controlling societies and attacking national tribal forces that oppose it.
The same financial system and media that was soft on the USSR (making movies like Reds or the Chairman) was the one praising Nafta and free trade. Average workers did not want their jobs sent to Mexico or China.
Rockefeller was against competition and for internationalism. he wa sno nationalist. As I said, "Marx or Money" is a false choice.
The issues are much bigger than money.
Patton wasn't thinking at all about money when he said communism was set to takeover Europe and America. He was thinking about rape, people expelled from their homes to make room for outsiders, the loss of Anglo-Saxon legal codes etc. And he was thinking of things like these massacres.
Much more than economics. The western media hid all the atrocities--the Red Terror etc.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2020 20:18:34 GMT
Saying that communism is spreading doesn't mean squat in regards to communism being an ideology in which the main framework is about re-organizing the economy from a capitalist one to a communist one. Particulary who owns the means of production. Free trade wasn't designed by uber communists. More by uber capitalists since it's people that own the capital who end up benefiting from free trade. Not the average worker. And Rockefeller was a capitalist too. "Marx or Money." Communism is not about money--it is about controlling societies and attacking national tribal forces that oppose it.
The same financial system and media that was soft on the USSR (making movies like Reds or the Chairman) was the one praising Nafta and free trade. Average workers did not want their jobs sent to Mexico or China.
Rockefeller was against competition and for internationalism. he wa sno nationalist. As I said, "Marx or Money" is a false choice.
The issues are much bigger than money.
Patton wasn't thinking at all about money when he said communism was set to takeover Europe and America. He was thinking about rape, people expelled from their homes to make room for outsiders, the loss of Anglo-Saxon legal codes etc. And he was thinking of things like these massacres.
Much more than economics. The western media hid all the atrocities--the Red Terror etc.
Rockerfeller the guy that said "The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest"? The one that founded Standard Oil which that prompted anti trust laws to dismantle into different companies because it had grown way too much. He was a capitalist. In fact he might be considered capitalism personified. Communism might be about more than money but the entire goal of it is to create a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are commonly owned. The economics of it are completely different than the free market economy of the United States. Yeah the Western media hid it. That's why pretty much everyone has heard of it. And all the atrocities committed by communists aren't exclusive to communism. Other regimes have done atrocities as well?
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 29, 2020 20:22:07 GMT
Rockerfeller the guy that said "The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest"? The one that founded Standard Oil which that prompted anti trust laws to dismantle into different companies because it had grown way too much. He was a capitalist. In fact he might be considered capitalism personified. Communism might be about more than money but the entire goal of it is to create a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are commonly owned. The economics of it are completely different than the free market economy of the United States. Yeah the Western media hid it. That's why pretty much everyone has heard of it. And all the atrocities committed by communists aren't exclusive to communism. Other regimes have done atrocities as well? Rockefeller was anti-Nationalist. He wasn't in America First like Ford or Edison. Communist sympathizers liked Rockefeller. I think he was also the middleman for getting the Federal reserve to be the private bank for the US. As I said "marx or Money."
Lenin instructed that one had to become the opposition to control the talking points-and that is what happened in the US. Capitalism in the Calvin sense is very different from the international capitalism of Rockefeller. But it's the Marx or Money trick again. Where Communism needs to be focused is on how it affects people,their freedoms, their ability to express their ethnic heritage and culture. Globalism and Communism are identical in those categories. Both are anti-Nationalist.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2020 20:24:33 GMT
Rockerfeller the guy that said "The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest"? The one that founded Standard Oil which that prompted anti trust laws to dismantle into different companies because it had grown way too much. He was a capitalist. In fact he might be considered capitalism personified. Communism might be about more than money but the entire goal of it is to create a classless, stateless society in which the means of production are commonly owned. The economics of it are completely different than the free market economy of the United States. Yeah the Western media hid it. That's why pretty much everyone has heard of it. And all the atrocities committed by communists aren't exclusive to communism. Other regimes have done atrocities as well? Rockefeller was anti-Nationalist. He wasn't in America First like Ford or Edison. Communist sympathizers liked Rockefeller. I think he was also the middleman for getting the Federal reserve to be the private bank for the US. As I said "marx or Money."
Lenin instructed that one had to become the opposition to control the talking points-and that is what happened in the US. Capitalism in the Calvin sense is very different from the international capitalism of Rockefeller. But it's the Marx or Money trick again. Where Communism needs to be focused is on how it affects people,their freedoms, their ability to express their ethnic heritage and culture. Globalism and Communism are identical in those categories. Both are anti-Nationalist.
Him being anti nationalist doesn't prevent him from being capitalist. Private bank? The sort of thing that doesn't really happens in communist countries considering that banks are state owned? Yeah. Sorry that only reinforces the idea that Rockerfeller was a capitalist.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 29, 2020 20:28:28 GMT
Him being anti nationalist doesn't prevent him from being capitalist. Private bank? The sort of thing that doesn't really happens in communist countries considering that banks are state owned? Yeah. Sorry that only reinforces the idea that Rockerfeller was a capitalist. You are still using the economic definition of Communism. As Is aid
Marx or Money is a false choice.
The issues go well beyond economics. It has to do with heritage, culture, freedom of expression. If these things were talked about openly, only the really stupid would embrace communism. but Capitalism by the same false choice is meaningless-it is the worship of money. This is not a heritage or cultural position.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2020 20:34:15 GMT
Him being anti nationalist doesn't prevent him from being capitalist. Private bank? The sort of thing that doesn't really happens in communist countries considering that banks are state owned? Yeah. Sorry that only reinforces the idea that Rockerfeller was a capitalist. You are still using the economic definition of Communism. As Is aid
Marx or Money is a false choice.
The issues go well beyond economics. It has to do with heritage, culture, freedom of expression. If these things were talked about openly, only the really stupid would embrace communism. but Capitalism by the same false choice is meaningless-it is the worship of money. This is not a heritage or cultural position.
I'm using the correct definition of communism, yes. Your conflation with capitalism=nationalism and communism=globalism is your made up definition.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 29, 2020 20:39:36 GMT
I'm using the correct definition of communism, yes. Your conflation with capitalism=nationalism and communism=globalism is your made up definition. You are using the definition stripped of real world application. The claim that communism vs capitalism is all about money is entirely off. Capitalism in the old sense is just a business system.
Communism is an ideology. It was not being opposed in the 1940s or 50s because people were worried about their money system. They were concerned about having a Red Terror kind of situation on the homefront--people being thrown in jail for their beliefs.
There is nothing in capitalism that is an ideology. Ann Rand tried to say there was-but she came out of the USSR and her sister remained comfortably behind. Following Lenin's advice no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by sadsaak on Apr 30, 2020 7:54:14 GMT
Some deep stuff on this thread, but the problem is that everytime someone mentions torches and the Russians I think of this....
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 30, 2020 10:03:39 GMT
I'm using the correct definition of communism, yes. Your conflation with capitalism=nationalism and communism=globalism is your made up definition. You are using the definition stripped of real world application. The claim that communism vs capitalism is all about money is entirely off. Capitalism in the old sense is just a business system.
Communism is an ideology. It was not being opposed in the 1940s or 50s because people were worried about their money system. They were concerned about having a Red Terror kind of situation on the homefront--people being thrown in jail for their beliefs.
There is nothing in capitalism that is an ideology. Ann Rand tried to say there was-but she came out of the USSR and her sister remained comfortably behind. Following Lenin's advice no doubt.
Hey if you have problem with the definition of communism and capitalism take it up with the dictionary. The US isn't communist and the shift to neoliberalism in 80's made the country drift even further from any socialist policies.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 30, 2020 10:53:53 GMT
"ethnic tribal interests"
Read no further, kiddies. Next we know, he'll be posting links to Jud Suss videos on youtube. Eye roll. Jews have tribal interests--they jsut don't believe others should have them. Chuck Schumer said he believes Israel should have guns and a border wall-he does not believe the US should. That is double standards born of tribal interests. Solzhenitsyn said Jews were responsible for communism. Pfft--what did he know right?
This is why claims of equality are BS--those that push equality dogma don't believe it themselves. The media says they believe in equality yet the others of the 5 big media companies all qualify for emigration to Israel. lol At the end of the day all we have is a series of clashes born born biology and ethnic tribalism is the root of it.
Look at the Palestinians. Their ethnic nationalism is attacked--they had no role in European conflicts with jews and yet they are shot, imprisoned, because they fight against Jewish nationalism. The anti-semitism label doesn't stick because according to you, the Dalai Lama is a bigot for suggesting Europe belongs to Europeans. lol
Good luck making the label stick.
Save it. Everything you've posted thus far stinks of Stormfront-style 'reasoned anti-Semitism'. I don't need to make the label stick; you've super-glued it to yourself and your subsequent rationalizations just make it stick all the harder.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 30, 2020 15:12:21 GMT
Eye roll. Jews have tribal interests--they jsut don't believe others should have them. Chuck Schumer said he believes Israel should have guns and a border wall-he does not believe the US should. That is double standards born of tribal interests. Solzhenitsyn said Jews were responsible for communism. Pfft--what did he know right?
This is why claims of equality are BS--those that push equality dogma don't believe it themselves. The media says they believe in equality yet the others of the 5 big media companies all qualify for emigration to Israel. lol At the end of the day all we have is a series of clashes born born biology and ethnic tribalism is the root of it.
Look at the Palestinians. Their ethnic nationalism is attacked--they had no role in European conflicts with jews and yet they are shot, imprisoned, because they fight against Jewish nationalism. The anti-semitism label doesn't stick because according to you, the Dalai Lama is a bigot for suggesting Europe belongs to Europeans. lol
Good luck making the label stick.
Save it. Everything you've posted thus far stinks of Stormfront-style 'reasoned anti-Semitism'. I don't need to make the label stick; you've super-glued it to yourself and your subsequent rationalizations just make it stick all the harder. At least we got him to talk about the Jews by name for once. He's usually more careful than that.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 30, 2020 15:18:25 GMT
Hey if you have problem with the definition of communism and capitalism take it up with the dictionary. The US isn't communist and the shift to neoliberalism in 80's made the country drift even further from any socialist policies. I go by what Patton and others were defining Communism as. I know the "Marx or Money" definition is a trick designed to shut down examination of the more serious implications of the totalitarian regime.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 30, 2020 15:20:30 GMT
Save it. Everything you've posted thus far stinks of Stormfront-style 'reasoned anti-Semitism'. I don't need to make the label stick; you've super-glued it to yourself and your subsequent rationalizations just make it stick all the harder. You cant make the label stick. I hardly post on the subjects. You are the one who is Jew-obsessed. If you suggest that communism=jews then that is your cross to bear. I can post about Soviet atrocities -- if this makes you uncomfortable you are the one with the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 30, 2020 15:24:25 GMT
Hey if you have problem with the definition of communism and capitalism take it up with the dictionary. The US isn't communist and the shift to neoliberalism in 80's made the country drift even further from any socialist policies. I go by what Patton and others were defining Communism as. I know the "Marx or Money" definition is a trick designed to shut down examination of the more serious implications of the totalitarian regime.
Ok. You go by what a general defines communism. Patton isn't an expert on communism so I don't see understand what you're trying to prove by constantly mentioning Patton. Why not go with Engels or Marx? Far more experts on communism than Patton. I go with the actual definitions of what the word means. Calling the US communist is right up there with calling the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 30, 2020 15:46:32 GMT
Ok. You go by what a general defines communism. Patton isn't an expert on communism so I don't see understand what you're trying to prove by constantly mentioning Patton. Why not go with Engels or Marx? Far more experts on communism than Patton. I go with the actual definitions of what the word means. Calling the US communist is right up there with calling the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a democracy. Solzhenitsyn was an expert on communism and he also said it wasn't "Marx or Money" choice. He was focused on the human rights side of things like Patton was.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 30, 2020 16:00:17 GMT
Ok. You go by what a general defines communism. Patton isn't an expert on communism so I don't see understand what you're trying to prove by constantly mentioning Patton. Why not go with Engels or Marx? Far more experts on communism than Patton. I go with the actual definitions of what the word means. Calling the US communist is right up there with calling the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a democracy. Solzhenitsyn was an expert on communism and he also said it wasn't "Marx or Money" choice. He was focused on the human rights side of things like Patton was. And did he say the US was a communist country? According to you the US started to become during the 80's but it's weird how a famous critic of communism ended up being well received by the likes of Ronald Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. You know the guys that kind ran things in the US in the 80's.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 30, 2020 16:05:51 GMT
And did he say the US was a communist country? According to you the US started to become during the 80's but it's weird how a famous critic of communism ended up being well received by the likes of Ronald Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. You know the guys that kind ran things in the US in the 80's. He said the US was heading in the direction and the Left establishment which had been singing his praises dropped him like a hot potato.
|
|