Communism in America

[theLeopard XIII]

There are 10 axioms that the Communist Manifest was built upon.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

The first time I read that communism had infiltrated American politics was in "The New Left" by Ayn Rand, published 1970. This topic recently came up in a segment on Glenn Beck's radio program in April.

Wiki- Ayn Rand

I have been concered over the erosion of personal liberties in America for quite some time. Gun control, smoking restrictions, unequal tax rates, affirmative action, the overwhelming dismissal of the constitution's intent. It seems that the Democratic agenda is aimed at one things: leveling the field. Not equalizing opportunity, but leveling the competition. It is no surprise, with the current state of the educational system, that things have gone this way. According to CNN's latest poll, college graduates are nearly 20% more likely to vote democratic than republican. Not because they are more intelligent; because the educational system itself is saturated with liberals. It has been for a very long time. According to an article in the Washington Post, 2005, "By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative".

Link

Students are being trained to be democrats. Society isn't leaning this way because of independent, educated opinion. Society is leaning this way because of training, guidance, and propaganda. So lets return to topic, the 10 tenets of the Communist Manifesto.

If you take a brief minute to read these articles you will start to see the impact the revolutionaries, the hippies, the beatniks, the drug addicts, the manipulated lost, yesterdays youth have had on current politics.

The Blaze
Liberty Zone

That is some. There is more.

If "all men are created equal" why are there laws in place asserting competative advantage to others? Because lawmakers have made the assertation that, in their opinion, all men are not created equal.
Who gave the government the authority to influence a private business's hiring practices? The liberal's. Affirmative action is not based on merit but on a thing as trivial as race. And here I thought that these so called "progressives" were trying to abolish racism from the national rhetoric, while in fact they create laws reinforcing racism on a federal level.
How is it that breaking dress code has become a platform for freedom of religion? If you don't know what I'm referring to - USA Today. Freedom of religion is the freedom to read, practice, and congregate. It is not a free pass to do whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want.

There is more.

Big government has been slowly exerting authority over private organizations and citizens and the list of grievances is only going to grow without some sort of reform, to thought and to education. If you need more proof here are a couple bipartisan examples:

ObamaCare forces the Catholic Church to provide birthcontrol - Huffington Post
Patriot Act expands "Big Brother" - New York Times

My point is simple. The constitution protects us from government. It protects our soldiers from war by giving Congress that power to declare. It protects us from tyranny by assuring all citizens access to weapons. It protects us from dictatorships by providing constitutional freedom of speech and religion. Without the constitution we are left at the mercy of special-interest politicians and authoritarian law. Remember: the government intends to sidestep the constitution because the constition was written to impede the government. Every law passed is another restriction. To citizens, to businesses, to families, to Americans.

Constitution's Bill of Rights

[God Emperor Akhenaton]

That's socialism, not communism.

[theLeopard XIII]

God Emperor Akhenaton

That's socialism, not communism.

You didnt bother to read the article and you missed the whole point.
Like, the first paragraph point.
The point where I list the 10 tenets of COMMUNISM. Not socialism.
****.

[azulmagia]

This thread is completely retarded.

[N3bu]

theLeopard XIII

God Emperor Akhenaton

That's socialism, not communism.

You didnt bother to read the article and you missed the whole point.
Like, the first paragraph point.
The point where I list the 10 tenets of COMMUNISM. Not socialism.
****.

What GEA meant to point out was that Communism as a system has no need of money or state. It's a border-less existence based on a post-scarcity world.

[Wendigo]

Y' realize that what Ayn Rand was advocating was actually fascism, right?

[theLeopard XIII]

Wendigo

Y' realize that what Ayn Rand was advocating was actually fascism, right?

She was advocating Capitalism and Objectivism.
objectivism

fascism grants total authority to the state. capitalism removes government from the market.
if you want to slam the author cite sources.

[Wendigo]

theLeopard XIII

Wendigo

Y' realize that what Ayn Rand was advocating was actually fascism, right?

She was advocating Capitalism and Objectivism.
objectivism

fascism grants total authority to the state. capitalism removes government from the market.
if you want to slam the author cite sources.

She was advocating the absolute rule of "superior" men. What is the central thrust of The Fountainhead? If an architect and his client disagree about the way a client's building should be designed (or, in her actual scenario, if the third party consultant hired pro bono without asking a client disagrees with a client he has never met), the architect has the right and the moral imperative to destroy the end product with dynamite. In spite of her avowed reverence for property and protecting the fruits of a specific kind of labor, the rightful owner of a building possesses no right to protect it in Rand's universe. The labor of the people employed to assemble it has no value to her. The use to which it might be put does not outweigh the ego of the narcissist who drafted its design.

Atlas Shrugged? About how the rest of society exists solely at the sufferance of the very wealthy, whom she suggests should withdraw into the desert to farm their own food and snake their own toilets as soon as one of them manages to invent a perpetual motion machine. (Which is by far the most appealing part of her bullshit, since if they all ran off to the desert, nobody'd have to worry about them anymore.)

[theLeopard XIII]

Wendigo

She was advocating the absolute rule of "superior" men.

And who would you have rule the world? Inferior men? And before you launch into an assault about the equality of men, I am not insinuating that quote "superior men" are granted more rights, I am stating that biologically some men are granted greater faculties than others. Not all men can invent calculus. Not all men can build rocketships. Not all men can design artificially intelligent robotics. Not all men are superior.

As for "absoulte rule", i disagree.
She clearly states her endorsement of citizen's rights to property.
She clearly states her endorsement of America and thereby its constitution.

Wendigo

What is the central thrust of The Fountainhead? If an architect and his client disagree about the way a client's building should be designed (or, in her actual scenario, if the third party consultant hired pro bono without asking a client disagrees with a client he has never met), the architect has the right and the moral imperative to destroy the end product with dynamite.

If the client and the architect disagree then the client hires a new architect. The architect is not funding the cost of the building, he is not laboring to construct it, he simply creates his idea of a perfect building. To assume that Rand is actually condoning the destruction of anothers property as a legal activity ignores the sentiment and exaggerates the statement.

Wendigo

Atlas Shrugged? About how the rest of society exists solely at the sufferance of the very wealthy, whom she suggests should withdraw into the desert to farm their own food and snake their own toilets as soon as one of them manages to invent a perpetual motion machine. (Which is by far the most appealing part of her bullshit, since if they all ran off to the desert, nobody'd have to worry about them anymore.)

And why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't anyone, if they could. The Metropolis is rife with crime and vice. To argue otherwise is to close your eyes.

N3bu

What GEA meant to point out was that Communism as a system has no need of money or state. It's a border-less existence based on a post-scarcity world.

Post-scarcity world? Defined that would be a world at a point in time after the want of provisions for the support of life, ie: apocalyptic. Communism has nothing at all to do with the amount of goods in the world it is simply an framework for the distribution of goods and the means of their production. Yes, money would be obsolete, but as to the creation of states I disagree.
* Naturally people will congregate together to share their communal resources. We have since the dawn of time.
* These 'communes' become the basis of the communist 'state' (state: 5a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definate territory)
* These states will compete, not for material resource but for human resource. They will want the most productive humans in their particular geographical territories
Perhaps with the obliteration of money goods can still be obtained freely anywhere on the globe but to assert that states will disappear is to ignore human nature.

[Maryhl]

One of these days we should go through the planks one by one and debate which ones have actually happened. And then we should discuss whether the planks which have occurred might be advantageous to the stability of contemporary capitalism, rather than a sign of its downfall as both communists and Randfans would like it to be.

[N3bu]

theLeopard XIII

N3bu

What GEA meant to point out was that Communism as a system has no need of money or state. It's a border-less existence based on a post-scarcity world.

Post-scarcity world? Defined that would be a world at a point in time after the want of provisions for the support of life, ie: apocalyptic. Communism has nothing at all to do with the amount of goods in the world it is simply an framework for the distribution of goods and the means of their production. Yes, money would be obsolete, but as to the creation of states I disagree.
* Naturally people will congregate together to share their communal resources. We have since the dawn of time.
* These 'communes' become the basis of the communist 'state' (state: 5a: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definate territory)
* These states will compete, not for material resource but for human resource. They will want the most productive humans in their particular geographical territories
Perhaps with the obliteration of money goods can still be obtained freely anywhere on the globe but to assert that states will disappear is to ignore human nature.

Not true. It merely implies the existence of a world were by our wants do not eclipse the resources and ability to satisfy them, thus annihilating the entire purpose of "ration" and "distribution". The system exists as a proposed evolution to Economic societies that we must inevitably reach as a species.

The insight as to whether the analysis is correct or not is a little beyond most I think, including myself, but the point was to state the existence of a world where resources do not matter thus dissolving the purpose of money, the state and most importantly class, thus the rise of the concept of providing what you can and receiving what you need. The equality derived is not forced but naturally occurring from context.

[Wendigo]

theLeopard XIII

Wendigo

She was advocating the absolute rule of "superior" men.

And who would you have rule the world? Inferior men?

If she could actually produce a superior man, I might be willing to discuss the proposition.

As it is, I believe in something known as a "democracy," where everybody who has an interest in the smooth functioning of a society - which is to say everybody who lives in that society - has an equal say in how it's run. Any divergence from that ideal in order to make an unaccountable social elite the only power in society, whether it is an intentionally designed political system, such as an oligarchy, a feudal system, the rule by a single party, or a dictatorship, is inherently repulsive to me on principle. Rand advocates such a system. She was a disgusting human being and I am glad that she has died, so that her beliefs and her slavish fascination with sociopaths can finally be forgotten. (Except by her cult, of course.)

Quote:

And before you launch into an assault about the equality of men, I am not insinuating that quote "superior men" are granted more rights, I am stating that biologically some men are granted greater faculties than others. Not all men can invent calculus. Not all men can build rocketships. Not all men can design artificially intelligent robotics. Not all men are superior.

Okay. Wernher Von Braun can build rocket ships.

Wernher Von Braun was a Nazi war criminal. He made use of slave labor by inmates of the concentration camp system in the construction of the V-2. Tacitly condoned murder. Congrats on giving him the key to the city.

Quote:

If the client and the architect disagree then the client hires a new architect.

The client never hired Roark, or even met him. His work was done, absolutely free, in a private agreement between Roark and Keating. And rather than press his claims that he had been mistreated through proper channels, he opted for mindless, ritualistic destruction.

Quote:

And why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't anyone, if they could. The Metropolis is rife with crime and vice. To argue otherwise is to close your eyes.

Why should I praise anybody for being a moral coward? Let them hide, let them run, and let the rest of us forget their worthless carcasses while they fester in the sun, fought over by vultures.

[N3bu]

But I admit, "Communism" isn't my speciality, I only know of it as a concept derived by Marx that has taken far too many newer and divergent meaning.

I'm more accustomed to pointing out how current society (especially the welfare state) isn't socialist and the differences between Capitalism and the Free Market.

[theLeopard XIII]

N3bu

Not true. It merely implies the existence of a world were by our wants do not eclipse the resources and ability to satisfy them, thus annihilating the entire purpose of "ration" and "distribution". The system exists as a proposed evolution to Economic societies that we must inevitably reach as a species.

The insight as to whether the analysis is correct or not is a little beyond most I think, including myself, but the point was to state the existence of a world where resources do not matter thus dissolving the purpose of money, the state and most importantly class, thus the rise of the concept of providing what you can and receiving what you need. The equality derived is not forced but naturally occurring from context.

If the state is dissolved, and money is obsolete, explain the need for plank#2:
"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
Communism does not dissolve money, nor does it dissolve the state.

Wendigo

theLeopard XIII

And who would you have rule the world? Inferior men?

If she could actually produce a superior man, I might be willing to discuss the proposition.

As it is, I believe in something known as a "democracy," where everybody who has an interest in the smooth functioning of a society - which is to say everybody who lives in that society - has an equal say in how it's run. Any divergence from that ideal in order to make an unaccountable social elite the only power in society, whether it is an intentionally designed political system, such as an oligarchy, a feudal system, the rule by a single party, or a dictatorship, is inherently repulsive to me on principle. Rand advocates such a system. She was a disgusting human being and I am glad that she has died, so that her beliefs and her slavish fascination with sociopaths can finally be forgotten. (Except by her cult, of course.)

And in this "democracy" that we live in, we elect representatives. Are you implying that the election of the mentally retarded, who maintains all the same rights and voice, would be as intelligent as electing a professor? We elect the best of us in order to lead the rest of us. If we fail to elect the best than we end up in a situation like we are in currently. Logic like this is the problem.

Wendigo

Quote:

And before you launch into an assault about the equality of men, I am not insinuating that quote "superior men" are granted more rights, I am stating that biologically some men are granted greater faculties than others. Not all men can invent calculus. Not all men can build rocketships. Not all men can design artificially intelligent robotics. Not all men are superior.

Okay. Wernher Von Braun can build rocket ships.

Wernher Von Braun was a Nazi war criminal. He made use of slave labor by inmates of the concentration camp system in the construction of the V-2. Tacitly condoned murder. Congrats on giving him the key to the city.

Evil men do evil things. I would choose to live in a state where evil is villified, not extolled. To use Nazi Germany to attempt to invalidate the premise is not only a red herring, it is an insult.

Wendigo

Quote:

And why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't anyone, if they could. The Metropolis is rife with crime and vice. To argue otherwise is to close your eyes.

Why should I praise anybody for being a moral coward? Let them hide, let them run, and let the rest of us forget their worthless carcasses while they fester in the sun, fought over by vultures.

This is not an issue of cowardice, or hiding, or running. It is an attempt to cultivate a life of peace free from the persecutions of the masses. It sounds like you are in favor of forcing people to live in the metropolis. In favor of delegating where exactly a man should live. In favor of restricting a mans right to live in the manner he deems best. If Ayn Rand would rather live in the desert and farm her own food and snake her own ****, let her. To call it cowardice is ignorant.

Demon Kagerou

One of these days we should go through the planks one by one and debate which ones have actually happened. And then we should discuss whether the planks which have occurred might be advantageous to the stability of contemporary capitalism, rather than a sign of its downfall as both communists and Randfans would like it to be.

I'm listening.. 3nodding

[Wendigo]

theLeopard XIII

Evil men do evil things. I would choose to live in a state where evil is villified, not extolled. To use Nazi Germany to attempt to invalidate the premise is not only a red herring, it is an insult.

You're the dim bulb who brought up rocket science, chief. There are bad examples, and there are bad examples. You want to talk about the 'superiority' of rocket scientists, then you've invited von Braun to the table. Intellectually, quite a guy. Ethically, kind of a snake. Not the only one in our space program. Unfortunately. As much as I like space, there are some things I wish we hadn't done in order to get there.

Quote:

This is not an issue of cowardice, or hiding, or running.

You just said the cities were scary.

Quote:

It is an attempt to cultivate a life of peace free from the persecutions of the masses. It sounds like you are in favor of forcing people to live in the metropolis.

Nope, people can do as they damn well please. I'm just not pinning any medals on somebody who buggers off to the desert because they're scared shitless of me and my neighbors. He can crap his pants in peace, I won't bother him.

Quote:

And in this "democracy" that we live in, we elect representatives.

We certainly do. As we must, because a pure, direct democracy is a logistical nightmare, and unlikely to meet our needs.

Quote:

the election of the mentally retarded,

Hm? If a retard can get the majority of the voting public to back him over the other options, then let him give it a try. If it doesn't work out well, he'll be replaced. That's what democracy is all about, you know, a free choice from among the offered alternatives.

If people feel that a retard is their best hope in a given election, I would say that it says more about the candidates involved than the people doing the voting.