Conquer Club

It's only a matter of time before TRUE communism takes over the world. There is nothing you can do about it , unless you oppose and fight against the technological revolution that is going on right now.

Computers are NOT capitalists! You have lost the war! Communism has won!

I think your confusing communism for fascism.

warmonger1981 wrote:I think your confusing communism for fascism.

Well, the veil is so thin. You believe "true communism" is fascism then? I don't think humans can be truly communist. We are wired with too much "self interest" to be truly communist. I think the real communists are just now starting at ground level...and they are not human. Like I said: "Computers are not Capitalists."

A lot of people often say 'communism' when what they mean is 'authoritarianism'.

Detaching words such as socialism, democracy, communism and capitalism from their true meanings and instead turning them into loaded, emotive terms is unhelpful, because it obscures meaningful debate about the systems we or other people live in.

mrswdk wrote:A lot of people often say 'communism' when what they mean is 'authoritarianism'.

Detaching words such as socialism, democracy, communism and capitalism from their true meanings and instead turning them into loaded, emotive terms is unhelpful, because it obscures meaningful debate about the systems we or other people live in.

I think your post summed up what people really hate. People do not like their freedoms infringed upon. What does freedom mean? Do you think communism allows for freedom? Freedom from want and from fear? Freedom of speech and freedom to worship?

I hate being taxed through my nose and not receiving any of the benefit. It would be different if I was being taxed and I could see the benefit, but I don't. You either have to be totally poor or super wealthy to see any type of benefit...if you are stuck in the middle, you will just remain in limbo. Perhaps China is seeing a boom in their Middle Class, but as far as America is concerned...our Middle Class is almost dead.

Generally if you get a large government you're going to end up with the same amount of your freedoms being imposed upon. That's what happens when you submit to a higher authority. The variable from system to system is merely which freedoms you sacrifice.

mrswdk wrote:A lot of people often say 'communism' when what they mean is 'authoritarianism'.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the authoritarian governments of the major communist nations this world has seen.

DaGip wrote:

mrswdk wrote:A lot of people often say 'communism' when what they mean is 'authoritarianism'.

Detaching words such as socialism, democracy, communism and capitalism from their true meanings and instead turning them into loaded, emotive terms is unhelpful, because it obscures meaningful debate about the systems we or other people live in.

I think your post summed up what people really hate. People do not like their freedoms infringed upon. What does freedom mean? Do you think communism allows for freedom? Freedom from want and from fear? Freedom of speech and freedom to worship?

I hate being taxed through my nose and not receiving any of the benefit. It would be different if I was being taxed and I could see the benefit, but I don't. You either have to be totally poor or super wealthy to see any type of benefit...if you are stuck in the middle, you will just remain in limbo. Perhaps China is seeing a boom in their Middle Class, but as far as America is concerned...our Middle Class is almost dead.

Gip has been seconded! One thing about what Freedom means today to some people...Freedom from hunger, freedom from speech and religion, freedom to be safe and know nobody in your whole area has a gun, freedom to not be broke by medical bills, freedom to always have a roof over your head no matter what, freedom to force others to work certain amount of hours a week to pay for taking care of everything for everyone and be a large community.....the slave on a plantation had all those things too, and prison is pretty close to that as well. To me Freedom is about blazing your own trail, and nobody standing in your way so long as you are not infringing on their Freedom and their Liberty and not causing harm to anyone else, and seeking to make your living the way you would like to, freedom to keep your wages, as opposed to every worker who makes 15$/hour really only gets about 10.50/hour, Freedom from being chained to other people and forced responsible for their choices or their luck, freedom to swim on my own or sink on my own, to reap the rewards of my successes, and the freedom to suffer my own stupidity and bad luck.

I would only add to DK that those in charge of such word choices and messaging like political party spokesperson and chairs etc make the changes based on focus groups responses, what has trended positively comparatively, and what is played out n washed up. I remember around the time I saw Michael Moore's 9-11 doc for the second time in theaters and along with everyone else gave it standing ovation both times, the word Liberal has been transformed into a dirty word. At that time Democrats got together and decided collectively to stop using Liberal and start using Progressive, and all the radio shows I listened to at the time (Stephanie Miller, Schultz, Franken and his slide whistle even) got on board and helped out to change the word game, and it always seems to work. I agree, it's easy for a lot of people to say "Liberal? aren't you supposed to be about at least some kind of Liberty?' or "conservative? what in the hell do you conserve?' I was called Liberal back then many times, and as time went on they started to put some stank on it. I kinda sounded like huhh-eLLLib-RAL! with a stress tone on the beginning L and pronounced as an exclamatory statement. And that was how people summed me up and judged me about everything.

The truth was I was simply but loudly outspoken against pre-emptive Iraq war and sharply critical of Bush in a few key areas (nation building, big deficits/adding to debt), and that was all it took to get me branded mindless liberal on the fringe extreme, just as now an opinion that government should not be in charge of marriage and sharp criticism against repeated triple-Bush annual deficits gets me branded a Hardcore and racist Republican on the opposite fringe extreme, even though I never changed the 9 points out of 10 where I am socially Liberal. So my point is it's not just the words, but it's also the people who zombie out with them and make assumptions based on little to no information. I realized that when I realized it wasn't me changing positions that got me called different things at opposite ends of spectrum, it was just society's natural absorbing of the party messages and party loyalty an people getting on board one way or another, based on one issue or another, and then there is a new name to describe that main issue at that point in time.

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:A lot of people often say 'communism' when what they mean is 'authoritarianism'.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the authoritarian governments of the major communist nations this world has seen.

The fact remains that communism and authoritarianism are two completely separate concepts.

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:A lot of people often say 'communism' when what they mean is 'authoritarianism'.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the authoritarian governments of the major communist nations this world has seen.

The fact remains that communism and authoritarianism are two completely separate concepts.

But that's exactly what a communist would say, and we can't trust communists because all of the ones we know of believe in authoritarianism.

(See why this won't get you very far?)

Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people. On the other hand Capitalism creates and endorses differences.
I think that Western Media and Hollywood are generally responsible for distorted picture about what communism is and is not... Thats the only way powerlords to stay in power in flawfull system like capitalism.

Pretty sure that nuclear weapons are the most effective method for eliminating differences between people. Or eliminating people. Whatever.

Metsfanmax wrote:Pretty sure that nuclear weapons are the most effective method for eliminating differences between people. Or eliminating people. Whatever.

Now, now, Metsie. We all know that the best means to eliminate capitalists is to turn off their money supply and watch them cannibalize each other. A communist virus is perhaps the most efficient way to eliminate people in general. A virus will leave the well being of the communist Earth alone while only focusing on one specific species instead of indiscriminate annihilation.

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:A lot of people often say 'communism' when what they mean is 'authoritarianism'.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the authoritarian governments of the major communist nations this world has seen.

The fact remains that communism and authoritarianism are two completely separate concepts.

But that's exactly what a communist would say, and we can't trust communists because all of the ones we know of believe in authoritarianism.

(See why this won't get you very far?)

No, it's exactly what simply Wikipedia'ing each of those concepts would tell you.

Marx, the original communist, sought a society in which government didn't exist at all, so while you educate yourself about what those two words actually mean you might also want to try again with the 'all communists believe in authoritarianism' claptrap.

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:A lot of people often say 'communism' when what they mean is 'authoritarianism'.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the authoritarian governments of the major communist nations this world has seen.

The fact remains that communism and authoritarianism are two completely separate concepts.

But that's exactly what a communist would say, and we can't trust communists because all of the ones we know of believe in authoritarianism.

(See why this won't get you very far?)

No, it's exactly what simply Wikipedia'ing each of those concepts would tell you.

Marx, the original communist, sought a society in which government didn't exist at all, so while you educate yourself about what those two words actually mean you might also want to try again with the 'all communists believe in authoritarianism' claptrap.

Whether they "believe" in authoritarianism is irrelevant. Communism requires people to exchange goods and services in ways that they would not exchange them of their own free will, so it necessitates an authoritarian enforcement mechanism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; actions have inescapable consequences, regardless of what "beliefs" people want to delude themselves with.

Maybe the implementation of communism usually requires authoritarian methods of governance, but that's not the point I was making. The point is that if you are talking about authoritarian government then you should use the word 'authoritarian', not 'communist'. Conflating the two as if they mean the same thing is just ignorant.

Dukusaur wrote:Communism requires people to exchange goods and services in ways that they would not exchange them of their own free will

Capitalist economies also have a range controls in place that force people to exchange goods and services in certain ways (e.g. green taxes, prohibition of certain goods, VAT, banking regulations, minimum wages, import duties).

Dukasaur wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:A lot of people often say 'communism' when what they mean is 'authoritarianism'.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the authoritarian governments of the major communist nations this world has seen.

The fact remains that communism and authoritarianism are two completely separate concepts.

But that's exactly what a communist would say, and we can't trust communists because all of the ones we know of believe in authoritarianism.

(See why this won't get you very far?)

No, it's exactly what simply Wikipedia'ing each of those concepts would tell you.

Marx, the original communist, sought a society in which government didn't exist at all, so while you educate yourself about what those two words actually mean you might also want to try again with the 'all communists believe in authoritarianism' claptrap.

Whether they "believe" in authoritarianism is irrelevant. Communism requires people to exchange goods and services in ways that they would not exchange them of their own free will, so it necessitates an authoritarian enforcement mechanism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; actions have inescapable consequences, regardless of what "beliefs" people want to delude themselves with.

Yup. Pretty much.

My favorite reaction is the "wrong rider, right horse" argument (i.e. communism works! but the people in power have been the wrong ones to implement it!).

Then there's the ever-changing "communism." "Oh, Soviet Union? That's not communism! Oh, modern Venezuela? That's not communism! Oh, PRC? That's not communism--but the parts I like about it are communism. Anything deviating from my ideal communism is not the fault of communism; it's those 'counter-revolutionaries' who ruin everything!"

GoranZ wrote:Communism is the most efficient system for achieving United Earth because it has ability to effectively eliminate differences between people. On the other hand Capitalism creates and endorses differences.
I think that Western Media and Hollywood are generally responsible for distorted picture about what communism is and is not... Thats the only way powerlords to stay in power in flawfull system like capitalism.

Define:

efficiency
Communism
Capitalism


After that, then we can reasonably criticize your beliefs/objective facts.

mrswdk wrote:Maybe the implementation of communism usually requires authoritarian methods of governance, but that's not the point I was making. The point is that if you are talking about authoritarian government then you should use the word 'authoritarian', not 'communist'. Conflating the two as if they mean the same thing is just ignorant.

Many people hold the view I proposed precisely because they think communism is inevitably linked to authoritarianism, for the reasons Duk and BBS are hinting to. This is a matter of empirical fact, but if it is true, then saying that communism and authoritarianism are interchangeable is only a minor error in the practical scheme of things. Your attempts to convince them otherwise will fall flat in the face of the fact that they don't care whether it's different -- they don't want authoritarianism. This only seems something worth getting actively upset about if there's a way to really do communism the "right" way.

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Maybe the implementation of communism usually requires authoritarian methods of governance, but that's not the point I was making. The point is that if you are talking about authoritarian government then you should use the word 'authoritarian', not 'communist'. Conflating the two as if they mean the same thing is just ignorant.

Many people hold the view I proposed precisely because they think communism is inevitably linked to authoritarianism, for the reasons Duk and BBS are hinting to. This is a matter of empirical fact, but if it is true, then saying that communism and authoritarianism are interchangeable is only a minor error in the practical scheme of things. Your attempts to convince them otherwise will fall flat in the face of the fact that they don't care whether it's different -- they don't want authoritarianism. This only seems something worth getting actively upset about if there's a way to really do communism the "right" way.

Who said I'm trying to convince anyone of the benefits of communism? I don't give a shit about communism. Today's PRC is achieving far more than Mao's communist PRC could ever have dreamed of.

The point is that in Western parlance, 'communism' has become some sort of shorthand for secret police, persecution and the desperate masses being plundered and oppressed by a corrupt bureaucracy. Therefore, whenever someone looks at an authoritarian government and says 'oh look, communism' the resulting discussion will not be a debate about authoritarian rule and the balance of state vs individual autonomy but just a chorus of 'oooh baaaad, evil regime, communism!!!!'. That kind of conversation is good for a Western government which merely wishes to demonize countries like China and avoid frank discussion of its own range of powers and intrusions, but it's no good if you want to have a meaningful debate about the system you or anyone else lives in. Use the terminology correctly.

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Maybe the implementation of communism usually requires authoritarian methods of governance, but that's not the point I was making. The point is that if you are talking about authoritarian government then you should use the word 'authoritarian', not 'communist'. Conflating the two as if they mean the same thing is just ignorant.

Many people hold the view I proposed precisely because they think communism is inevitably linked to authoritarianism, for the reasons Duk and BBS are hinting to. This is a matter of empirical fact, but if it is true, then saying that communism and authoritarianism are interchangeable is only a minor error in the practical scheme of things. Your attempts to convince them otherwise will fall flat in the face of the fact that they don't care whether it's different -- they don't want authoritarianism. This only seems something worth getting actively upset about if there's a way to really do communism the "right" way.

Who said I'm trying to convince anyone of the benefits of communism? I don't give a shit about communism. Today's PRC is achieving far more than Mao's communist PRC could ever have dreamed of.

The point is that in Western parlance, 'communism' has become some sort of shorthand for secret police, persecution and the desperate masses being plundered and oppressed by a corrupt bureaucracy. Therefore, whenever someone looks at an authoritarian government and says 'oh look, communism' the resulting discussion will not be a debate about authoritarian rule and the balance of state vs individual autonomy but just a chorus of 'oooh baaaad, evil regime, communism!!!!'. That kind of conversation is good for a Western government which merely wishes to demonize countries like China and avoid frank discussion of its own range of powers and intrusions, but it's no good if you want to have a meaningful debate about the system you or anyone else lives in. Use the terminology correctly.

Do you think that telling people to use the terminology correctly will result in a more enlightening discussion? (Hint: no, it won't. People who want to demonize China are going to do it whether they can call China communist or not.)

I am pretty sure that DaGip meant 'authoritarianism' when he wrote his OP. Now, because he used the word 'communism' instead, this thread has degenerated into a bunch of 'hurr durr communism sucks' rather than any sort of meaningful debate about the rise of authoritarian systems of governance. That is exactly why using terminology correctly matters.

The same thing applies to demonization. If you refuse to think about what words such as 'communist', 'democracy', 'racist', 'progressive' etc. actually mean and instead just assign random emotive values to each of them then you are never going to be able to discuss anything seriously. Just jump whenever master tells you to.

Look, boy! The government of China is called the Chinese Communist Party!
Ruff ruff, I hate Reds! Gulags! Arr, hate China!

Look, boy! That banker is a capitalist!
Woof, I hate capitalism! Bankers! The 1%! Money is fascist ruff ruff!

It would be much more difficult for the manipulators to propagandize and sow the seeds of division if people didn't buy into those sorts of stupid over-simplifications.

mrswdk wrote:The same thing applies to demonization. If you refuse to think about what words such as 'communist', 'democracy', 'racist', 'progressive' etc. actually mean and instead just assign random emotive values to each of them then you are never going to be able to discuss anything seriously. Just jump whenever master tells you to.

Look, boy! The government of China is called the Chinese Communist Party!
Ruff ruff, I hate Reds! Gulags! Arr, hate China!

Look, boy! That banker is a capitalist!
Woof, I hate capitalism! Bankers! The 1%! Money is fascist ruff ruff!

It would be much more difficult for the manipulators to propagandize and sow the seeds of division if people didn't buy into those sorts of stupid over-simplifications.

True, but is it correct to expect people to drop resources into learning about political philosophy, economics, and so on?

But also, everyone to some degree wants "public participation" in the economic spheres of other people's lives. So, statism, in whatever form, is here to stay. And, regardless of the propaganda, many political movements still receive sincere (and morally well-intended) support by enough of the population (whether it be the Baathists of Saddam's past regime or a majority vote then roughly 30% of Germans supporting the Nazi Regime, etc).