What is communism?

[WidreMann]

How's the weather?

Really boring. Chance of storms or rain this weekend into early next week. I'm looking forward to it.

[Lindaloo]

What is your obsession with communism? Are you trying to bring it back or are you saying we are communists? You do not even believe in God widremann so that defines you as a communist.

No, it doesn't! All I can take away from this is that you don't even have a basic understanding of logic, much less an understanding of what communism is, and how most liberals in this country aren't communists.

But a definition of communism is those who do not believe in God. That is you widremann

[breeze]

Boring seems to be rampant.

[WidreMann]

What is your obsession with communism? Are you trying to bring it back or are you saying we are communists? You do not even believe in God widremann so that defines you as a communist.

No, it doesn't! All I can take away from this is that you don't even have a basic understanding of logic, much less an understanding of what communism is, and how most liberals in this country aren't communists.

But a definition of communism is those who do not believe in God. That is you widremann

No it isn't! Atheism does not imply communism and vice versa. They are two separate things. Just like having 4 limbs does not imply that you are a horse. Or that being 6 feet tall implies that you are a coffin.

Many communists were atheists, and certainly forms of communism required atheism because God put a monkey-wrench in the whole classless society, workers owning the means of production business. But that's not what makes communism. Similarly, not believing in God does not make you a communist. I know atheists who are actually quite conservative.

And I'm an agnostic by the way, although I doubt it would make a difference since either way I am a heathen to you guys.

[Lindaloo]

Is that your definition?

[mf_dolphin]

Widremann I don't believe for a second that you're communist. You have the arrogance of youth and most of us have managed to survive it. When you address people as being naive you discount the experience that many of us have in the real world. That's both presumptious and belies your obvious intelligence. Talk to me in 20 years and we'll see how your view on the world changes with time....

[stormraiser]

In my opinion, there has never been a true communist state. Many of the "communistic" countries in the world haven't made it past socialism, which is where the government controls industry, land, etc. to lead in the direction of communism.

Communism is where there is no ownership of property, not even by the government. A place where everything is held in common, like the early church in Acts 2 and 4. "And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. And abundant grace was upon them all and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common, and they were selling their possessions and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need"

Acts 4.32-35 "Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power, the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of our Master and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the feet of the apostles and it was distributed to each as any had need."

This was the original plan for Israel, that there would be no needy and that all would be taken care of, that there would be no needy among God's people, to show his character to those who didn't know him, but somehow Israel fell away. Then, Jesus reset the same pattern for the New Israel. And that is how it started, to show the Gentiles that God cared about people and wanted to take care of them.

There wasn't a king or governor or president, other than the Son of God. He was to rule in their hearts and they were to love one another. This is communism at its finest, no ownership of property, all living for the good of all and eveyone taking care of one another. Communism with God was and is possible. Karl Marx writings on communism was to create it without God, because he didn't see the reality of his Creator in the witness of the Church during his lifetime.

[rainstorm]

I need an answer. Let's see how long it takes to get it.

my best definition is it =misery for those living under it, and genocide for those living under it that oppose it.

[streetsoldier]

Communism, as stated above, is what actually occurred in Marxist-Leninist states; the ideal of a "classless society" never truly developed, nor did workers becoming owners of the means of production.

Now, for some basics. Marx and Engels didn't account for one of the most universal drives in man; that of incentive and self-interest. The very idea that a nuclear physicist and a street sweeper would both "give, according to their ability", yet receive the same economic benefits "according to their needs"; the same apartment, transportation, clothing, etc., shows the disregard for personal incentive plainly.

Which, I suppose, is why so many upper-level scientists, engineers, etc. tried and/or successfully escaped to the West during the Cold War? Like most people who are able to do so, they wanted (and, still want) to reap the benefits of their own labor. Russians today are very conservative, loath to sweeping change, but they would LIKE to become consumers.

Never ignore man's desire for upward mobility and personal gain; Marx did, and look at what's left of communist states today.

More, Marx based his findings, as they were, on bad arithmetic. In his thoughts, the split of capital between workers and owners looked like this, spread over time.

20- workers 10, owner 10
30- workers 10, owner 20
40- workers 10, owner 30
50- workers 10, owner 40, and so forth.

What actually happens in a capitalist, free-market system looks like this...

20- workers 10, owner 10
30- workers 18, owner 12
40- workers 26, owner 14
50- workers 34, owner 16, etc.

In other words, the proportional share of wealth to the owner decreases, but the actual share increases; both employees and owners benefit.

Any questions?

[j]

Widremann I don't believe for a second that you're communist. You have the arrogance of youth and most of us have managed to survive it. When you address people as being naive you discount the experience that many of us have in the real world. That's both presumptious and belies your obvious intelligence. Talk to me in 20 years and we'll see how your view on the world changes with time....

I loved this response! Great job Marshall.

[WidreMann]

Widremann I don't believe for a second that you're communist. You have the arrogance of youth and most of us have managed to survive it. When you address people as being naive you discount the experience that many of us have in the real world. That's both presumptious and belies your obvious intelligence. Talk to me in 20 years and we'll see how your view on the world changes with time....

Lindaloo said I was an atheist and therefore a communist, neither of which is true.

I also think it is arrogant of you to assume that when one grows up, one automatically becomes a conservative as if liberalism is just some sort of youthful indescretion.

[j]

I also think it is arrogant of you to assume that when one grows up, one automatically becomes a conservative as if liberalism is just some sort of youthful indescretion.

hmmmm. I read this thread over and over and nowhere do I see where Marshall said, or even implied, that once a youth like yourself grows and matures, that they become a conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[streetsoldier]

In addition to my previous post, WidreMann, you might want to research one Lionel Boulware; who practiced and championed direct negotations with each of his employees, and offered better benefits "voluntarily", rather than deal with heavy-handed unions.

The single phrase I recall about him is "Doing Right Voluntarily"; you may find his story particularly salient to this line of inquiry.

[Stephanie]

I agree that Widreman is our resident "angry young man". I know I've complained about the generalization that has been thrown around here on occassion that "liberals are commies" and CNN = Communist National Network, etc. It's the generalization that bothers me and from the very good definitions of communism posted here, I think that they help to diffuse these statements to a degree. I don't believe that Liberals are looking for a classless society or government control of industry, etc.

[j]

Stephanie....my mother is a Liberal and she is definitely not a communist, in fact...she hates communism. However...I have argued with her that her political views, "lean" toward Socialism, for which she tells me to shut up!

[streetsoldier]

Stephanie,

By "taxing the wealthy" and redistributing wealth, the liberals will have de facto control of industry, if not actual, through new laws that tend to discourage entrepreneurism and job growth.

Recall my quote from The Sharon Statement?

When Government interferes with the work of the market ecomony, it tends to reduce the moral and political strength of the nation. When it takes from one man, and gives to another, it reduces the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both.

Besides, many of the "wealthy", i.e. "millionaires" who own their own businesses, actually live a middle-class lifestyle; no arrogant display, no "conspicuous consumption". This is because their businesses are capital-intensive, requiring the vast bulk of the "wealth on paper" to be redirected into the business in upgrades, meeting Federal standards, etc.

Taxing these people in confiscatory rates, therefore, actually causes the opposite effect desired; fewer jobs, more Chapter 11 filings and less wealth to CREATE jobs.

Think on this for awhile...OK?[/i]

[Lindaloo]

I also think it is arrogant of you to assume that when one grows up, one automatically becomes a conservative as if liberalism is just some sort of youthful indescretion.

hmmmm. I read this thread over and over and nowhere do I see where Marshall said, or even implied, that once a youth like yourself grows and matures, that they become a conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because that is what you are taught and when you grow up and get more experience your thinking changes.

[j]

you have a point Linda....I definitely was not the conservative individual I am now when I was 20 something. I only wish I had found the light earlier in my life.

You see Widremann....we are only trying to help.

[stormchazer]

I also think it is arrogant of you to assume that when one grows up, one automatically becomes a conservative as if liberalism is just some sort of youthful indescretion.

hmmmm. I read this thread over and over and nowhere do I see where Marshall said, or even implied, that once a youth like yourself grows and matures, that they become a conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because that is what you are taught and when you grow up and get more experience your thinking changes.

As a youngster, you are in a stage were you are more shaped by your enviroment and the people around you (Family, school, friends). The older you get, the more you begin to formulate your own opinions based on information you pusue instead of that which is given to you. I think you will, like I, find this is true.

[stormraiser]

I heard this one time and I can't remember who said it

If you are young and conservative, you have no heart. If you are old and liberal, you have no brain

Well, after a quick search, that was by Winston Churchill, but not word for word