Heres more proof that democrats are communist & socialist.
- Thread starter ravensteve1961
- Start date
K
kuifje75
Guest
I fail to see what "closet" has to do with self service at gas stations. It seems like such a random thought to me.
Too bad! I do not dodge you when I answered your question, but you do not understand what I mean.Banjo said:
What does "Why not?" mean? If you do not know what it is, do not blah at me.
Get your dictionary and look them up. I already know what they are.
Askjo said:
I am perfectly aware of what communism and socialism are. Especially when I happen to live in a country where we have a socialist/democratic government. I am quite familiar with how it works. So I don't need to look them up in the dictionary, it's you who need to since you couldn't answer a question that wouldn't take up too much of your time to begin with.
Typical.
DreamyHawaii
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 0
I understands what that purposed and I copied from internet. Since no one reply?
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.
Obviously, before it can be achieved, production must reach undreamed of heights—to satisfy everyone’s needs there must be the greatest of plenty of everything. In addition, there must have developed a change in the attitude of people toward work—instead of working because they have to, people will work because they want to, both out of a sense of responsibility to society and because work satisfies a felt need in their own lives.
Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.
It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.
Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.
The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.
The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.
The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.
Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.
There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.
Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.
More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.
Huberman and Sweezy, "Introduction to Socialism," Monthly Review
What is the difference between socialism and communism?Banjo said:
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.
Obviously, before it can be achieved, production must reach undreamed of heights—to satisfy everyone’s needs there must be the greatest of plenty of everything. In addition, there must have developed a change in the attitude of people toward work—instead of working because they have to, people will work because they want to, both out of a sense of responsibility to society and because work satisfies a felt need in their own lives.
Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.
It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.
Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.
The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.
The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.
The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.
Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.
There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.
Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.
More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.
Huberman and Sweezy, "Introduction to Socialism," Monthly Review
Askjo said:So am I.
Everybody, see what Askjo is trying to do?
Askjo don't know what communism and socialism is. That's why he refuse to answer. Nice try, I know you are only pretending to know what you're talking about.
You falsely accuse me for that. I have a dictionary as likewise as you do. We know what they are. I know about socialism, communism and capitalism because I studied them for business.Banjo said:Everybody, see what Askjo is trying to do?
Askjo don't know what communism and socialism is. That's why he refuse to answer. Nice try, I know you are only pretending to know what you're talking about.
Askjo said:
Falsely accused?
It's not a crime, but it was stupid of you to make a remark regarding socialism and communism when you obviously don't know what they are. Especially when you refused to answer. Oh, please spare me the usual crap. Anybody can say that they used to study them for their business classes.
Typical.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Thanks for the post.DreamyHawaii said:
Here are some of the key problem points:
Note the use of the word "dictatorship" and the word "replace" (usually thru violent means).
More key words: taking over, destroy, armed strength, and crush. See the pattern of violence?
That means stealing someone else's private property.
That's stealing.
DreamyHawaii
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes that is correct 100%
You got it that point of their conclusion and I am glad you make it the point out... I understands what Banjo is trying to asking Ravensteven that question about "what is socialism and communism means" he is just got out of question. Stuck with stupid. lol To me I know what that communism and socialism means but I only heard about it from Russian have it and some of others do have it too. But in the USA does not have that kind of communism and socialism and do you think it is going to be communism and socialism in the USA ? I doubt not.... communism and socialism is like control over people's private property and take it away from them and force them to do the work and make own private property and they take it away from them. Is that correct?
You got it that point of their conclusion and I am glad you make it the point out... I understands what Banjo is trying to asking Ravensteven that question about "what is socialism and communism means" he is just got out of question. Stuck with stupid. lol To me I know what that communism and socialism means but I only heard about it from Russian have it and some of others do have it too. But in the USA does not have that kind of communism and socialism and do you think it is going to be communism and socialism in the USA ? I doubt not.... communism and socialism is like control over people's private property and take it away from them and force them to do the work and make own private property and they take it away from them. Is that correct?
Reba said:
DreamyHawaii said:
Just to remind you... a while ago, the supreme court ruled that people can be forced off their properties against their will. Sure, they will be "compensated" but it's still stealing. Only it's "legally" done, yet immoral in my eyes.
For example, if you were to run to a car and pull the car owner out of it and put a handful of cash into his hands and drive off in the car without the owner even agreeing to it...
That is stealing and you will go to jail for it. Only the difference is, corporations can do it legally. Go figure.
Yes, it's partially an element of socialism. You take somebody else's property and give it to someone else. After all, there's the welfare system. Now that's socialism.
DreamyHawaii
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes I can imagined that true about your comment.
For those who have common sense can take their control and defensive against their will. and some of those who do have common sense and they are stealing their idea just because they do not have common sense to protect themselves from those who took advantage of them. Just like those who are socialism took advantage of welfare and social security income too. It's only for emergency need help pay the bills and support their living too. But still stealing people's money through by tax is it right or am I wrong?
That tax is to pay for road,police,fire,hospital,FBI,space shuttle,and welfare also social security too.
I know there is another meaningfulness of what you requested and I have no idea about it. But I do understands your comment too. I could find out about it through by the internet info. etc. almost 100% of it.
I know corporate can do that and prevent from being scam from what happened that timing was involved scam. There is no evidence of what happened cuz of their corporate has their knowledge of how to prevent from scam. Is that correct?
They seemingly to be like half of wise ass to do that right?
For those who have common sense can take their control and defensive against their will. and some of those who do have common sense and they are stealing their idea just because they do not have common sense to protect themselves from those who took advantage of them. Just like those who are socialism took advantage of welfare and social security income too. It's only for emergency need help pay the bills and support their living too. But still stealing people's money through by tax is it right or am I wrong?
That tax is to pay for road,police,fire,hospital,FBI,space shuttle,and welfare also social security too.
I know there is another meaningfulness of what you requested and I have no idea about it. But I do understands your comment too. I could find out about it through by the internet info. etc. almost 100% of it.
I know corporate can do that and prevent from being scam from what happened that timing was involved scam. There is no evidence of what happened cuz of their corporate has their knowledge of how to prevent from scam. Is that correct?
They seemingly to be like half of wise ass to do that right?
Banjo said:
Last edited:
Most democrats ignored the U.S. Constitution. For example, we learned that Bill Clinton won because he was NOT impeached by them. Bill Clinton was a Democrat. ACLU is one of them. I recall that many people asked 2 communist Presidents of Russia about being the President of the USA. They answered that they would like to see Jesse Jackson to be the President of the USA because Jesse is a Democrat. Jerry Falwell sent me a letter and I read it saying that Martin Luther Kings was a "closet" communist. I realized why Jesse was with him before Martin was shot to the death.DreamyHawaii said:
Communism and socialism are anywhere in the USA. Look at 2 websites below:
Socialism - Look at the link: http://sp-usa.org/
Communism - Look at the link: http://www.cpusa.org/