ComradeDavo, forgive me for saying this, but the term "communist" is already taken and the definition is already decided. When you choose to call yourself a communist you effectively claim to share those opinions, not some other ideology.
Socialists, let's make our stand!
- Thread starter prefect42
- Start date
ComradeDavo, forgive me for saying this, but the term "communist" is already taken and the definition is already decided. When you choose to call yourself a communist you effectively claim to share those opinions, not some other ideology.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
I have tried to look at these questions on the simplest levels, but in the real world I would of course ahve tom factor in unique circumstances for each different case.
1) A person owns a small plot of land with a small house on it. It is this person's only residence. Is this a problem?
I see no problem with that.
2) A person owns a moderate plot of land with a nice house on it. It is this person's only residence. Is this a problem?
I see no problem with that.
3) A person owns a large plot of land with a spacious mansion on it. It is this person's only residence. Is this a problem?
Yes. In Cairo people live in graveyeards and on rooftops. In Narobi and Rio de Jinero there are huge squatter settlements. I could go look up and name many moe examples of overcrowding as I have done several case studies of it in Geography, but the fact is why does one person deserve to live in a huge mansion, which excess space they do not need, when someone who has the misfortune to be born in a different country or into a different background deserve to live in cramped conditions with little room to move, sharing a bed with their children and sharing their dinner table with there animals.
4) A person owns multiple plots of land, with homes on them, and lives in them (does not rent any of them). Is this a problem?
Yep. There is a shortage of housing in many areas across the globe, people need places to live, and additionally therefore owning several houses and living in all of them is ridiculus when you consider the sheer amount of homeless people on the streets today.
5) A person owns multiple plots of land, with homes on them, and lives in one while renting the others. Is this a problem?
Yep, personal profit, redistrubuition of the wealth and all that.
6) A person owns a huge, multi-acre tract of land, and uses it for farming. Is this a problem?
This all depends on what kind of farming, the issue of profit, how much the workers are paid etc ets. personally I would prefer the land to be run by the state, with this owner as an administrator.
7) A person owns multiple huge, multi-acre tracts of land, and farms them. Is this a problem?
see last question
8) A person owns multiple huge, multi-acre tracts of land, and rents them out to farmers. Is this a problem?
see question 5.
I was infering that NY Hoya believes all communists to be blind in there faith, well that was the impression I got anyway. I haven't read the manifesto because a)i'm only 17 next month and have an awful lot to do in my life and b)I don't need a book to tell me what to think
1) A person owns a small plot of land with a small house on it. It is this person's only residence. Is this a problem?
I see no problem with that.
2) A person owns a moderate plot of land with a nice house on it. It is this person's only residence. Is this a problem?
I see no problem with that.
3) A person owns a large plot of land with a spacious mansion on it. It is this person's only residence. Is this a problem?
Yes. In Cairo people live in graveyeards and on rooftops. In Narobi and Rio de Jinero there are huge squatter settlements. I could go look up and name many moe examples of overcrowding as I have done several case studies of it in Geography, but the fact is why does one person deserve to live in a huge mansion, which excess space they do not need, when someone who has the misfortune to be born in a different country or into a different background deserve to live in cramped conditions with little room to move, sharing a bed with their children and sharing their dinner table with there animals.
4) A person owns multiple plots of land, with homes on them, and lives in them (does not rent any of them). Is this a problem?
Yep. There is a shortage of housing in many areas across the globe, people need places to live, and additionally therefore owning several houses and living in all of them is ridiculus when you consider the sheer amount of homeless people on the streets today.
5) A person owns multiple plots of land, with homes on them, and lives in one while renting the others. Is this a problem?
Yep, personal profit, redistrubuition of the wealth and all that.
6) A person owns a huge, multi-acre tract of land, and uses it for farming. Is this a problem?
This all depends on what kind of farming, the issue of profit, how much the workers are paid etc ets. personally I would prefer the land to be run by the state, with this owner as an administrator.
7) A person owns multiple huge, multi-acre tracts of land, and farms them. Is this a problem?
see last question
8) A person owns multiple huge, multi-acre tracts of land, and rents them out to farmers. Is this a problem?
see question 5.
I was infering that NY Hoya believes all communists to be blind in there faith, well that was the impression I got anyway. I haven't read the manifesto because a)i'm only 17 next month and have an awful lot to do in my life and b)I don't need a book to tell me what to think
Greadius
:yeah:
Uhm... if it is so crowded, why do they live there?
And he never specified that the mansion was in a city. What if the mansion is on the South Pole... redistribution necessity?
If he tore the houses down before he was forcibly removed from his property, and people would have to live in the wilderness rather than in homes, would you still steal his property?
I read the Communist Manifesto when I was 16
I think he makes a good point though... you realize that the term Communist carries a lot of baggage and ideology... every state that called itself Communists has been oppressive, totalitarian, and in many cases murderous, and those are the Communists that pop up in our minds when we hear the word.
Perhaps you need a more friendly lable, or to better understand the baggage of the label you are using.
A piece of good advice for the future is for you to make sure you understand the ideology you claim to agree with. Don´t call yourself a communist unless you know what a communist is and are positive the description suits you. The same goes for everything else, like liberal, conservative or whatever. Being young is no excuse for being ignorant.
knowltok2
Deity
'Factoring in unique circumstances for each different case'. If that doesn't sound like a recipe for corruption and graft, I don't know what does. It sounds like what you are saying is that you can own some property, but not more than you think is proper. Also, what you can do on the property is open to government review. Wheat is okay, but tulips will be controlled by the state.
Why even allow the small and moderate private property? Just put everyone into an identical grey box. We can have rows and rows of them in the cities. Of course, if you happen to be a friend or relative of a government official in charge of housing, you might get a slightly bigger grey box. The officials themselves can have larger boxes on the top corners of the buildings.
We are not ants.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Originally posted by Greadius
I read the Communist Manifesto when I was 16
I think he makes a good point though... you realize that the term Communist carries a lot of baggage and ideology... every state that called itself Communists has been oppressive, totalitarian, and in many cases murderous, and those are the Communists that pop up in our minds when we hear the word.
Perhaps you need a more friendly lable, or to better understand the baggage of the label you are using.
I read the Communist Manifesto at the age of 14, and all three volumes of "Capital", and "The State and Revolution", and "Imperialism: The highest Stage of Capitalism"
At the age of 15, I copied out by hand the Communist Manifesto, and added my own 4 page introduction, and a 7 page commentary as to its modern relevance. I sh!t you not.
After that, I wrote a 35 page book entitled "Revolutionary Warfare: Warfare in its application of Armed Revolution against Capitalism"
Flicking through it now it is extreme cringe causing ideological babble mixed with tidbits of garbled military history and military theory that is so out of it, it is funny!
Gosh, the way we were...
The second bit by Greadius:
That is what I am talking about entirely.And David, I wouldn't really call you a communist if you haven't read the Manifesto, and the other tracts. It mentions itself the different types of socialists who are not communists.
What, for example, is your opinion on the abolition of the family?
What about, instead of education, children combine their lessons with industrial production, ie factory work?
What about the confiscation of all property of certain types of people, such as emigrants, or rebels?
Marx and Engels are very clear on their platform. So was Vladimir Ilyich.
So was Uncle Iosef.
Switch625
I don't care.
To ComradeDavo:
Greadius and Knowltok's replies have said it as well (or maybe even better) than I could have, so I have nothing to add there.
Just one thing. It is very contradictory of you to claim to be a communist, but to have never read the founding documents that define the communist ideology. It is not independent thinking, it is ignorance. It's like a person claiming to be a christian, yet having never read the bible. You are claiming association with something you do not understand.
Greadius and Knowltok's replies have said it as well (or maybe even better) than I could have, so I have nothing to add there.
Just one thing. It is very contradictory of you to claim to be a communist, but to have never read the founding documents that define the communist ideology. It is not independent thinking, it is ignorance. It's like a person claiming to be a christian, yet having never read the bible. You are claiming association with something you do not understand.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
okay, I shall be honest with all of you.
I have not read the communist manifesto, I all in all honesty can say that I do intend to, and have done for some time.
I call myself a communist because that is what people have told me my idealogies are. This has been so for the past two or three years.
I'm only 17 next month, and I do expect my politics to change as I age.
I believe in the redistrubution of the wealth, and that everyone should be considered equal, and that people should get paid according to there needs. These are the fundamental beliefs behind my political idealogies.
I realise that in the real world things that political theory doesn't always matter, that in many cases it is useless.
I have read up on Che Guevera, and he is the communist I most admire. But no, I am not some kind of Che guevera groupie!!! I don't admire him for the 'romance', more I respect what he tried to achieve, and how he spoke out against soviet imperilism etc etc.
In 1917 there were 2 gropus of Communists in russia, and I would have fallen into the menshevic catergory, so all this talk of lenin and stalin doesn't really apply to me.
I have studied the Soviet Union in history, and done alot of extra reading on the history of communism. I understand the 'baggage' which comes with it.
If any one can think of a better lable than communist, feel free to tell me! I'm to extreme to be called a socialist, and when I say i am an extreme socilaist I get called a communist. I have been lablled it by people I know, I didn't give it to myself!
I know the ignorant communist type you seem to think I am, infact one of my best friends falls into this type. Therefore from now on I shalt try and put across a better impression on civfanatics forums!
And, to tell the truth, I kind of suck at explaining what I think and it always comes out wrong. so then I give the wrong expression, the best description I can think of is 'digging my own hole'.
I have not read the communist manifesto, I all in all honesty can say that I do intend to, and have done for some time.
I call myself a communist because that is what people have told me my idealogies are. This has been so for the past two or three years.
I'm only 17 next month, and I do expect my politics to change as I age.
I believe in the redistrubution of the wealth, and that everyone should be considered equal, and that people should get paid according to there needs. These are the fundamental beliefs behind my political idealogies.
I realise that in the real world things that political theory doesn't always matter, that in many cases it is useless.
I have read up on Che Guevera, and he is the communist I most admire. But no, I am not some kind of Che guevera groupie!!! I don't admire him for the 'romance', more I respect what he tried to achieve, and how he spoke out against soviet imperilism etc etc.
In 1917 there were 2 gropus of Communists in russia, and I would have fallen into the menshevic catergory, so all this talk of lenin and stalin doesn't really apply to me.
I have studied the Soviet Union in history, and done alot of extra reading on the history of communism. I understand the 'baggage' which comes with it.
If any one can think of a better lable than communist, feel free to tell me! I'm to extreme to be called a socialist, and when I say i am an extreme socilaist I get called a communist. I have been lablled it by people I know, I didn't give it to myself!
I know the ignorant communist type you seem to think I am, infact one of my best friends falls into this type. Therefore from now on I shalt try and put across a better impression on civfanatics forums!
And, to tell the truth, I kind of suck at explaining what I think and it always comes out wrong. so then I give the wrong expression, the best description I can think of is 'digging my own hole'.
knowltok2
Deity
Well that came accross fine. It was thought-out, well reasoned, and admitted that the perspective is limitted, as are all of ours. Good post.
Oh, and on holes, and I really truly don't mean anything by this, but, do you all know the First Rule of Holes?
When you are in one, stop digging.
Seriously, ComradeDavo, your post only reminded me of it because you mentioned digging holes, not for any other reason.
It was thought-out, well reasoned, and admitted that the perspective is limitted, as are all of ours. Good post.Oh, and on holes, and I really truly don't mean anything by this, but, do you all know the First Rule of Holes?
When you are in one, stop digging.
Seriously, ComradeDavo, your post only reminded me of it because you mentioned digging holes, not for any other reason.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
A better label for now would be utopian socialist.
What stuff have you read on Guevara, incidentally? He were not a Menshevik
What stuff have you read on Guevara, incidentally? He were not a Menshevik
Switch625
I don't care.
Good reply, ComradeDavo.
"The first step on the path to enlightenment is to admit to ourselves that we know nothing."
Appropriately enough, I don't remember who said that... though I suspect it might've been Gautama Buddha.
It's all too easy for people (myself included
) to forget that, especially when posting messages on the internet.
I salute your self-awareness, and look forward to sparring with you again in the future!
Edited to correct a broken smiley...
"The first step on the path to enlightenment is to admit to ourselves that we know nothing."
Appropriately enough, I don't remember who said that... though I suspect it might've been Gautama Buddha.
It's all too easy for people (myself included
) to forget that, especially when posting messages on the internet.I salute your self-awareness, and look forward to sparring with you again in the future!
Edited to correct a broken smiley...
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I believe it was Socrates' "Apology" that basically said that the wisest men know nothing.
Similar threads
