Can't call them communists now.

Can't call them communists now. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> Can't call them communists now. (9/23/2014 7:30:47 PM)
Anyone in objective observance couldn't and for sometime especailly given that a few years back, a 'party leader' lost I think $3 or $4 million in Vegas. HERE However, after the Agricultural Bank of China in 2010 and now this ? Well...the jury is now out. The Chinese for a political/economy experiment in history, are as likely THE new model...capitalist fascists. I thought this was 'illegal.' Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank , Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan , Morgan Stanley and Citigroup acted as joint book runners for the offering. So when I do get financing for my pool/hall restaurants (with no restaurants) here in Vegas...think they will let me run a little 'book' on the side ?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/23/2014 7:41:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Anyone in objective observance couldn't and for sometime especailly given that a few years back, a 'party leader' lost I think $3 or $4 million in Vegas. HERE However, after the Agricultural Bank of China in 2010 and now this ? Well...the jury is now out. The Chinese for a political/economy experiment in history, are as likely THE new model...capitalist fascists. I thought this was 'illegal.' Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank , Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan , Morgan Stanley and Citigroup acted as joint book runners for the offering. So when I do get financing for my pool/hall restaurants (with no restaurants) here in Vegas...think they will let me run a little 'book' on the side ? (I have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what you just said).

MrRodgers -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/23/2014 10:06:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Anyone in objective observance couldn't and for sometime especailly given that a few years back, a 'party leader' lost I think $3 or $4 million in Vegas. HERE However, after the Agricultural Bank of China in 2010 and now this ? Well...the jury is now out. The Chinese for a political/economy experiment in history, are as likely THE new model...capitalist fascists. I thought this was 'illegal.' Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank , Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan , Morgan Stanley and Citigroup acted as joint book runners for the offering. So when I do get financing for my pool/hall restaurants (with no restaurants) here in Vegas...think they will let me run a little 'book' on the side ? (I have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what you just said). Communists don't allow such investment/freedoms to occur and communist 'party leaders' aren't supposed to be nearly rich enough to lose million$ in Vegas in the 'worker's paradise.' With the Agricultural Bank of China and now Alibaba among others going public and reaping billion$...China can no longer be called a communist state. That there are rich 'leaders' otherwise known as govt. kleptocrats in China, it deserves tha title of capitalist fascism and is the direction the west is heading that will just take time.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 12:25:50 AM)
Somebody's been D. R. I. N. K. I. N. G. [sm=chug.gif]

Zonie63 -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 7:06:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Communists don't allow such investment/freedoms to occur and communist 'party leaders' aren't supposed to be nearly rich enough to lose million$ in Vegas in the 'worker's paradise.' With the Agricultural Bank of China and now Alibaba among others going public and reaping billion$...China can no longer be called a communist state. That there are rich 'leaders' otherwise known as govt. kleptocrats in China, it deserves tha title of capitalist fascism and is the direction the west is heading that will just take time. I suppose you could call it that. Political parties have been known to change their positions on various issues, and communism certainly has had many interpretations and permutations over the years. The actual name of any political party seems almost meaningless at this point, including our own "Democrat" and "Republican" parties.

Musicmystery -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 7:54:43 AM)
There has never been anything communist about them. They were socialists who have moved to a mixed economy.

MrRodgers -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 1:51:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery There has never been anything communist about them. They were socialists who have moved to a mixed economy. They were certifiably communists under Mao and his successors until the gang of four cannibalized themselves leaving Deng Xiaoping's to bring in his slight reforms. So if you are correct, it was he who brought in the 'mixed' economy which is not nearly so so mixed as say the US economy. The collectivization of communism has morphed into the collectivization of profits in a devoutly corrupt for-profit form of capitalism as most exemplified now by the turning of paper...into money, mostly western. While socialism requires neither that or the fascist control that China still practices. Socialism only requires a sufficient (a very high) ownership of the means of production. America has the capitalism and is going fascist while China has the fascist and is successfully transitioning to capitalism.

Musicmystery -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 2:18:14 PM)
com·mu·nism ˈkämyəˌnizəm/ noun noun: communism; noun: Communism; plural noun: Communisms a political theory derived from Karl Marx in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. [that never happened in China] so·cial·ism ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ noun noun: socialism a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Now THAT happened in China. What is the difference between socialism and communism? http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

cloudboy -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 2:33:41 PM)
Yes, the manifestation of "Communism" in both China and the USSR was dictatorship instituted by fanatical political parties using communist jargon as a means to attack political enemies. First the enemies were external, then they became internal. In neither country did the proletariat ever rise up and take control of the means of production. In the West, fear of revolution and political change became a fear of Communism. So, wherever colonialism or capitalism disenfranchised local populations --- the existing order often had to be maintained by "anti-communist" force. In our lifetime the closest we've maybe come to either communism or socialism is the Paris Commune and the NFL (revenue sharing.)

MrRodgers -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 3:05:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery com·mu·nism ˈkämyəˌnizəm/ noun noun: communism; noun: Communism; plural noun: Communisms a political theory derived from Karl Marx in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. [that never happened in China] so·cial·ism ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ noun noun: socialism a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. Now THAT happened in China. What is the difference between socialism and communism? http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm Oxford: The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy. Why does it 'necessarily' apply ? Socialism has been seized upon as a word to denote anti-market, anti-capitalist as in, the enemy of private profits and the corporation but as an economic system, has never been fully practiced anywhere. [It] requires none of the chief characteristics of either communism (collectivization) as reflected in the main tenets of Marxism or fascism as we see in China, N. Korea or even Vietnam. Marxism/Leninism sees the presence of competition between parties, as an ineffective measure of genuine democracy and rather asserts that, in a socialist society, pluralism only measures division and dysfunction within society. So one can describe a socialist society in which social democrats can own the means of production or Marist/Leninists communists can own them. However, a major distinction is found in that under the social democratic model there can be a measure of partial or wholly private ownership, while under the Marxist/Lenisist model there can be no such thing but only govt. ownership...hence collectivization which is exactly what happened under Stalin and Mao. In fact, the debate still continues actually on an intellectual level as to whether the proletariat was ever in control of the Marxist-Leninist states and other communist tendencies. To these tendencies, Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism nor the union of both, but rather an artificial term created to justify Stalin's ideological distortion. Mao and others have since followed the Stalinist model which where without political parties but only the communist party, represents the collectivization of property and production...only one of which is required of socialism. Socialism in western society has become a usefully malleable denigration in order the reinforce the concept that neither the capitalist or the corporation need serve society and for any means of production to do so...is thus socialism. The institutions created by the capitalist are rightfully called yet the term avoided is...state capitalism which is what the US and much of the west has now and will naturally morph into state fascism as first financially reflected for example by TARP where the state forced the proletariat to bail out the capitalist for his sins and currently exchanges fiat (worthless) capital from an insolvent central bank that will need a tremendous infusion of public (taxpayer) money to remain operating. The police state will only be necessary once we give up sports, celebrity worship, hedonism and other rather meaningless pleasurable distractions.

Musicmystery -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 3:11:26 PM)
Ah...no. But whatever. I've given up on expecting posters here to yield to something so subjective as the dictionary in deciding what they want words to mean. [8\|]

Titaniche -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 3:28:55 PM)
Sure would be nice if people knew what they were talking about before they posted to these boards. But, what can one expect when most of these peoples' brains are between their legs. For the woefully inept at academic/professional/historical research, the concept of communism goes back beyond Plato's Republic, which advocated what we now call "Communism." Communism, Socialism (whether Fabian or National Socialist) or Fascism, are all very closely related forms of Totalitarian Dictatorship.

MrRodgers -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 3:38:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Ah...no. But whatever. I've given up on expecting posters here to yield to something so subjective as the dictionary in deciding what they want words to mean. [8\|] Well going back to the 50's, the most staunch conservatives and most book references defined socialism as simply govt. ownership of the means of production and was an economic system...not a political system. There was never any mention of the 'community as a whole.' That the Oxford dissertation doesn't satisfy...is not our problem.

MrRodgers -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 3:46:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Titaniche Sure would be nice if people knew what they were talking about before they posted to these boards. But, what can one expect when most of these peoples' brains are between their legs. For the woefully inept at academic/professional/historical research, the concept of communism goes back beyond Plato's Republic, which advocated what we now call "Communism." Communism, Socialism (whether Fabian or National Socialist) or Fascism, are all very closely related forms of Totalitarian Dictatorship. Well I guess that's because Plato's concept was completely wrong just as the early Greek form of democracy was wholly corrupt and also wrong. Socialism as I have described and in the 20th century, is an economic system..not a political system and even if really tried correctly...nothing close in anyway to a totalitarian dictatorship. Oh...and my brains are right where they are supposed to be and not up my arrogant ass like some here.

Musicmystery -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 7:34:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Ah...no. But whatever. I've given up on expecting posters here to yield to something so subjective as the dictionary in deciding what they want words to mean. [8\|] That the Oxford dissertation doesn't satisfy...is not our problem. Yes, I can see that.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 7:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Anyone in objective observance couldn't and for sometime especailly given that a few years back, a 'party leader' lost I think $3 or $4 million in Vegas. HERE However, after the Agricultural Bank of China in 2010 and now this ? Well...the jury is now out. The Chinese for a political/economy experiment in history, are as likely THE new model...capitalist fascists. I thought this was 'illegal.' Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank , Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan , Morgan Stanley and Citigroup acted as joint book runners for the offering. So when I do get financing for my pool/hall restaurants (with no restaurants) here in Vegas...think they will let me run a little 'book' on the side ? (I have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what you just said). Communists don't allow such investment/freedoms to occur and communist 'party leaders' aren't supposed to be nearly rich enough to lose million$ in Vegas in the 'worker's paradise.' With the Agricultural Bank of China and now Alibaba among others going public and reaping billion$...China can no longer be called a communist state. That there are rich 'leaders' otherwise known as govt. kleptocrats in China, it deserves tha title of capitalist fascism and is the direction the west is heading that will just take time. Some of you are old enough to remember Phil Donahue. He was Oprah before Oprah. He did a show (mid 80's maybe?) where he connected via satellite to his Russian counterpart (they actually have toilet paper and road signs....just like ours). What was amazing was....they are JUST like us, but, their government is vastly different. They own homes (just like us), own and buy cars (just like us), obey (and disobey) traffic laws (just like us), pay traffic tickets, and don't (just like us), have divorce laws (just like us): 10/20 and 30 (walk away/get half or everything/pay the woman some support...and in all cases.....just like us.....{in most cases} the man pays support). Communists have billionaires (just like us), they have poor people (just like us) and they have a middle class (just like us). The world is not so different than us. Those that believe otherwise are not at all.....just like us.

Sanity -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 8:00:10 PM)
You normally gather your dinner from a city park? [img]http://cdn.all-that-is-interesting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/north-korea-photographs-starvation.jpg[/img]

Zonie63 -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 9:11:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery There has never been anything communist about them. They were socialists who have moved to a mixed economy. I think communism was the ultimate goal, while socialism was, theoretically, the means to achieve that goal. But the actual name by which they call their particular party might not fall in line with the actual definition. Just like the old joke about the Holy Roman Empire not being holy or Roman or an empire. Whatever they choose to call themselves or how we choose to react to them, one can't deny that China has sure come a long way since the devastation they were facing in the 1940s when the communists took power. After civil war, then war with the Japanese, then more civil war, they were in pretty rough shape. But they marshaled their manpower and resources and managed to build themselves up into quite a powerhouse, both militarily and economically. They're flexible enough to do business with the West and make some money, but that hasn't really changed their position in the world. We've also grown more flexible too, even though there is still some lingering Cold War era antagonism regarding China. Some people regard them as communist "in name only," so it gives us a certain amount of flexibility that wouldn't ordinarily be possible in an earlier era. But then, we're still somewhat at odds with them because of issues which arose during the Cold War and even before the Cold War. That doesn't mean that we're enemies, but we're not exactly close friends either. We still have a military presence in East Asia, too. So, perhaps on an economic level, they may not be "communist," but on a geopolitical level, we still kind of/sort of look at them that way, because our policymakers still seem a bit guarded and wary. They're still ruled by an authoritarian government, and issues like Taiwan and Korea present some barriers as well. I wouldn't consider them fascist, although that's another term that seems to be used in various contexts not strictly in line with the dictionary definition.

MistressKel -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 9:48:53 PM)
Anyone that is trying to separate economic definitions/models from political definitions/models is apparently very naive and really should return to some form of higher education. Except on a micro scale, economics and politics are always intrinsic to each other.

MrRodgers -> RE: Can't call them communists now. (9/24/2014 9:53:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Anyone in objective observance couldn't and for sometime especailly given that a few years back, a 'party leader' lost I think $3 or $4 million in Vegas. HERE However, after the Agricultural Bank of China in 2010 and now this ? Well...the jury is now out. The Chinese for a political/economy experiment in history, are as likely THE new model...capitalist fascists. I thought this was 'illegal.' Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank , Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan , Morgan Stanley and Citigroup acted as joint book runners for the offering. So when I do get financing for my pool/hall restaurants (with no restaurants) here in Vegas...think they will let me run a little 'book' on the side ? (I have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what you just said). Communists don't allow such investment/freedoms to occur and communist 'party leaders' aren't supposed to be nearly rich enough to lose million$ in Vegas in the 'worker's paradise.' With the Agricultural Bank of China and now Alibaba among others going public and reaping billion$...China can no longer be called a communist state. That there are rich 'leaders' otherwise known as govt. kleptocrats in China, it deserves tha title of capitalist fascism and is the direction the west is heading that will just take time. Some of you are old enough to remember Phil Donahue. He was Oprah before Oprah. He did a show (mid 80's maybe?) where he connected via satellite to his Russian counterpart (they actually have toilet paper and road signs....just like ours). What was amazing was....they are JUST like us, but, their government is vastly different. They own homes (just like us), own and buy cars (just like us), obey (and disobey) traffic laws (just like us), pay traffic tickets, and don't (just like us), have divorce laws (just like us): 10/20 and 30 (walk away/get half or everything/pay the woman some support...and in all cases.....just like us.....{in most cases} the man pays support). Communists have billionaires (just like us), they have poor people (just like us) and they have a middle class (just like us). The world is not so different than us. Those that believe otherwise are not at all.....just like us. Of course what you are talking about is high ranking military and communist party members...not Soviet society at large. All of those basics were reserved for the party and military officers. Many millions of the great proletariat as they were called had to stand in long lines just to get the basics of life and very often when they got to front of the line...they were out. One couldn't get certain clothes, foodstuff or an apt. without joining the party and then proving your loyalty. Plus I don't know of a single 'Soviet' billionaire until the latest regime of crony kleptcratic thievery took place in the 90's. The world at large has areas of large populations that are nothing like us. 700 million Indians still live on dirt floors with little or no elec. power or fresh running water.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875