Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Exegesisme

The Manifesto For The Global Peoples On Ending Communism

Recommended Posts

The Manifesto For The Global Peoples On Ending Communism
Historically, and globally, there was not any evil movement as the movement of
communism, so deceptive mind, so instigative soul, so bloody practice, so
large range, and so long last. And now, it is the time to end it.
This is the era of information. All evils of communism are being uncovered and
will be uncovered. Those few remained communist regimes are living in the
opposite positon of what they claimed. They are so stupid that they have not
any effective method to provent their communist ideology against themselves.
That communism on paper is absurd, in practice has become tool of those evil
groups taking the power of nations and peoples to serve those evil members of
those evil groups. The story that happened and is happenning in China, is
vividly telling the global peoples, that not only the benefits of Chinese
people are in dangers, but also the benefits of global peoples are in
intimidation.
The global peoples, unite together, fight together, win together in the fight
against those communist regimes, in the liberation of Chinese people and other
peoples from those communist regimes. Then, a new world belongs to the global
peoples.

‚Äč

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's something that's interesting about Communism. It was birthed in 2 major countries, Russia and China.

Both are now embracing capitalism, in their own ways. And in both cases, the same corrupt people who manipulated the communist system for their own benefit now manipulate the capitalist system for their own benefit. And the common people are still stuck living under corrupt authoritarian regimes.

So, maybe the fundamental problem wasn't with the ideology itself. Maybe it was that these countries went from primitive authoritarian societies and tried to implement advanced societal concepts without any history or tradition of the types of checks and balances that make a normal advanced society possible.

The types of checks and balances that Stephen Harper's government has spent the past 10 years undermining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's something that's interesting about Communism. It was birthed in 2 major countries, Russia and China.

Both are now embracing capitalism, in their own ways. And in both cases, the same corrupt people who manipulated the communist system for their own benefit now manipulate the capitalist system for their own benefit. And the common people are still stuck living under corrupt authoritarian regimes.

So, maybe the fundamental problem wasn't with the ideology itself. Maybe it was that these countries went from primitive authoritarian societies and tried to implement advanced societal concepts without any history or tradition of the types of checks and balances that make a normal advanced society possible.

The types of checks and balances that Stephen Harper's government has spent the past 10 years undermining.

1, That communism " ideology itself" is evil, for it refuses any reasonable checks and balances, and other faiths.

2, "the types of checks and balances that make a normal advanced society possible" are refused by that evil communism ideology.

I hope to see all the evidences that you use to support your claim "The types of checks and balances that Stephen Harper's government has spent the past 10 years undermining."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system that will be best , will be one who channels our human imperfections like greed, and the drive to dominate in the most positive way for the greater good of the society.

This is why capitalism works. It doesn't pretend that it's on a higher moral level. It accepts humans as they are and tries to take natural negative human behaviour, and channels them to benefit the society as much as possible.

Laws will never successfully stop all humans from behaving like humans. Channeling that negative energy into a benefit is very intelligent.

Communism failes to recognize that we are not perfect, and that its normal to act in a way that most benefit ourselves. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Edited by Freddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why capitalism works. It doesn't pretend that it's on a higher moral level. It tries to take natural negative human behaviour, and channels them to benefit the society as much as possible.

I sort of agree, but I want to point something out. The capitalism that competed against communism in the early days didn't survive. Because our system was open, and fostered discussion, it morphed into a modified form of capitalism that included social benefits and guarantees for owners and workers both. Governments of the right and left in Canada and the US added these things in the middle 20th-century as a result of public debate to these challenges. Dictatorial Communism was closed, and didn't allow for modifications to allow the best parts of capitalism (eg. meritocratic elements) to take root.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sort of agree, but I want to point something out. The capitalism that competed against communism in the early days didn't survive. Because our system was open, and fostered discussion, it morphed into a modified form of capitalism that included social benefits and guarantees for owners and workers both. Governments of the right and left in Canada and the US added these things in the middle 20th-century as a result of public debate to these challenges. Dictatorial Communism was closed, and didn't allow for modifications to allow the best parts of capitalism (eg. meritocratic elements) to take root.

I'm looking at the fundamentals, of why it works. The fundamentals are still the same today, even if people have fought for rights, for safety and protection from extreme greed.. Like I've said.

Capitalism today tries to channel negative human behaviour into something positive. Governments have continued to regulate capitalism in a way that benefits society the most.

Edited by Freddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism is where man makes money off the backs of his fellow man, in Communism, it's the other way around.

People will continue to make money off of other people, That negative human behaviour continues regardless if you try and stop it. This is why channelling that negative energy into something that benefits everyone is much smarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking at the fundamentals, of why it works. The fundamentals are still the same today, even if people have fought for rights, for safety and protection from extreme greed..

What do you consider the fundamentals ? If it's the permission to invest, to lend money, and to own property then I agree. Jared Diamond also submitted in Guns, Germs and Steel that this is what made Christian Europe prosper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you consider the fundamentals ? If it's the permission to invest, to lend money, and to own property then I agree. Jared Diamond also submitted in Guns, Germs and Steel that this is what made Christian Europe prosper.

The fundamentals is that people will do those thing regardless if you allow it our not. Instead of outlawing and punishing it like communism, capitalism embraces it and tries to channel it positively in a productive way.

That is why punishments get very extreme in communist countries. Your asking your population to behave against their normal human instincts.

Much fear needs to be implemented for that to work and erodes trust and acceptance of government rule over the population.

Edited by Freddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system that will be best , will be one who channels our human imperfections like greed, and the drive to dominate in the most positive way for the greater good of the society.

This is why capitalism works. It doesn't pretend that it's on a higher moral level. It accepts humans as they are and tries to take natural negative human behaviour, and channels them to benefit the society as much as possible.

Laws will never successfully stop all humans from behaving like humans. Channeling that negative energy into a benefit is very intelligent.

Communism failes to recognize that we are not perfect, and that its normal to act in a way that most benefit ourselves. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

"our human imperfections" are the key for any practical political system and social theory. These systems and theories should develop to help human overcome his or her imperfections, and then can help him or her make a successful life. Communism is on the opposite way, encourages human evil tendency to fight human imperfections, that is why no one in communist regime is really successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sort of agree, but I want to point something out. The capitalism that competed against communism in the early days didn't survive. Because our system was open, and fostered discussion, it morphed into a modified form of capitalism that included social benefits and guarantees for owners and workers both. Governments of the right and left in Canada and the US added these things in the middle 20th-century as a result of public debate to these challenges. Dictatorial Communism was closed, and didn't allow for modifications to allow the best parts of capitalism (eg. meritocratic elements) to take root.

"Dictatorial Communism was closed." It has to close even nowadays, the reason is that a few called communist take the benefits of the majority secretly, the majority has not legal rights to know this secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"our human imperfections" are the key for any practical political system and social theory. These systems and theories should develop to help human overcome his or her imperfections, and then can help him or her make a successful life. Communism is on the opposite way, encourages human evil tendency to fight human imperfections, that is why no one in communist regime is really successful.

Socialists lack the understanding and acceptance that humans will rarely act contrarily to what will benefit themselves. It's the flaw they do not comprehend and is why it's unnatural. It's all in the fundamentals.

As a animal you will act in direct benefit to yourself. Survival is the root of why we behave that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe some of the right wing clowns who are still fighting communist ghosts of the past, can show me one country that has a better quality of life after communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialists lack the understanding and acceptance that humans will rarely act contrarily to what will benefit themselves. It's the flaw they do not comprehend and is why it's unnatural. It's all in the fundamentals.

As a animal you will act in direct benefit to yourself. Survival is the root of why we behave that way.

You won't see any "survival of the fittest" "might is right" theorists pontificating on human nature actually crack open a book on real paleo-anthropology research. And yes there's good reasons why they avoid the subject: first being that our ancestors wouldn't have survived the ice ages of the Pleistocene and especially the fallout of a supervolcano explosion 70,000 years ago if they had been following modern rightwing virtues of selfishness and competition!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1, That communism " ideology itself" is evil, for it refuses any reasonable checks and balances, and other faiths.

That's a ridiculous statement. Checks and balances can be introduced into any form of government. Your statement shows that you've come to this discussion with a closed mind.

I'm done with this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a ridiculous statement. Checks and balances can be introduced into any form of government. Your statement shows that you've come to this discussion with a closed mind.

I'm done with this thread.

"Checks and balances can be introduced into any form of government."--This statement is to confident to open its mind.

Could you try to introduce any proper checks and balances into any communist government, for example, into the regime of North Korea?

So, I can only agree to disagree to you.

Edited by Exegesisme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, and globally, there was not any evil movement as the movement of

communism...

So here's something that's interesting about Communism. It was birthed in 2 major countries, Russia and China.

Both are now embracing capitalism, in their own ways. And in both cases, the same corrupt people who manipulated the communist system for their own benefit now manipulate the capitalist system for their own benefit. And the common people are still stuck living under corrupt authoritarian regimes.

I don't think communism is evil so much as the totalitarian regimes that were build within the ideologies of ie: Leninism and Maoism are evil. Communism is an economic system, while totalitarianism and democracy are forms of political systems. There's nothing inherent within the economic system that is communism that says that the political institutions that support it must be totalitarian, and there's nothing to say a country with a communist economy can't have a democratic government. If the majority of the people in a country support a communist economy, that's democracy.

Marx's communist theory was mostly an economic theory of history, he wasn't very specific on how any future communist political system should function. Leaders like Lenin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il-Sung etc. were left to fill in the blanks. IMO, Lenin (& later Stalin), Mao, & the freaks in North Korea etc all perverted Marx's writings, to the advantage of their own political power, and took Marx's reference of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to espouse for a literal dictatorship in government, while the term itself only refers to "a state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power" as opposed to a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" which would describe virtually all capitalist countries (where rich elites rule) according to Marxists . Stalin's USSR or Mao's China can't be described as "a dictatorship of the proletariat" if your average worker in those countries has little to no political power and has to do whatever the elites in the brutal totalitarian governments say.

Also, the question to whether communism as an economic system was effective or not is different to whether is was "good" or "evil".

Edited by Moonlight Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, maybe the fundamental problem wasn't with the ideology itself. Maybe it was that these countries went from primitive authoritarian societies and tried to implement advanced societal concepts without any history or tradition of the types of checks and balances that make a normal advanced society possible.

You hit on something here, the fact that Russia and China were primitive economic societies devoid of much industrialization prior to their adoption of "communism". Marx's theory stated that societies will move through each stage of economic history, and capitalism is the final stage before dialectic antagonisms will see it overthrown for communism. Well, maybe these primitive economic societies weren't advanced enough and capitalism/industrialization and weren't already developed enough for communism to succeed in these countries? Maybe they weren't even advanced enough for democracy to succeed with strong authoritarian elements? A true communist country shouldn't need a totalitarian/authoritarian government to force the masses to obey it's commands, the masses should be willing and supportive of good policy that gives power and common ownership to the workers.

Edited by Moonlight Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't see any "survival of the fittest" "might is right" theorists pontificating on human nature actually crack open a book on real paleo-anthropology research. And yes there's good reasons why they avoid the subject: first being that our ancestors wouldn't have survived the ice ages of the Pleistocene and especially the fallout of a supervolcano explosion 70,000 years ago if they had been following modern rightwing virtues of selfishness and competition!

If we did it because it was the only way we could survive these situations, then we are still following our individual selfish basic instinct of self interest to stay alive and happy.

I bet in the face of one bigger common enemy. Muslims and Christians wouldn't have a problem working together in the common goal of not being exterminated.

I don't believe you truly understand nor do I believe you are capable of understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A true communist country should actually be devoid of any state, currency or class structure. None of the so called Communist countries ever achieved this. And there really wasn't ever a collective ownership of anything in Stalin or Maos visions of communism. A working class rule has really never been achieved in the modern political history of human kind. Human's might even be to corrupt to ever let it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To WIP you want to ask what its like post Soviet for former communist states-go ask. Go ask theAlbanians, Poles Hungarians, Estonians Lithuanians, Latvians, East Germans, Romanians in Canada. All you have to do is ask them.

Why do you think the Ukrainians are waging a war?

Do you really want to argue people were better off under Soviet KGB controlled states? Wow.

To Michael Harder you are dead on and show the irony that for capitalism to have survived it had to modify and incorporate socialist benefits to a degree. Interestingly the cornerstone of capitalism was that dynamic constant tension between union and management.

Whether that dynamic is the same today I leave to others to comment on but what we did learn is and China will any year now, is that when you have a captive labour state, there is inevitably a revolution of some kind. To head off that revolution you either implement human and social benefits or something gives.

If nothing else in North America the sheer extent of workers dying from work place acquired diseases and injuries required this implementation and still does.

I think its possible to have a balance between humane work environments and productive ones. I don't see capitalism as necessarily evil. I see certain greedy humans corrupted by lack of accountability in large layered institutions which capitalism lends itself to and that breeding poor management. I would argue keep institutions open and accountable so that accountability spurs the changes needed through self regulation. Problem is so most boards of directors today don't challenge their executives and corporate executives keep their decisions secret and in that secrecy comes corruption and whether its a communist or capitalist institution that happens.

The closest I ever saw socialism in action was on a kibbutz in Israel. We had no need of money. A collective self sufficient farm which I loved as a young man was ideal but it was limited in function and application.

I do not think anything is possible in China even remotely resembling communism. I think Mao killing 20 million people and placing his masses under captive one man ruled dictatorship run by political killer squads proved that. So did the need of communist states using political police. They proved socialism was not possible. Their very political police structure proved socialism could not work so it had to be forced.

Socialism is easier on a small, controlled scale. I mean you have it to as close an extent as possible in say Denmark but their way of life could not happen in China.

If you want to live an exorbitant materialistic life its not the Danish way but they live clean and decent its just there is no classes of privilege like even here in Canada.

I identified with Israel when it was socialist and a labour run country.Today it is a far different creature. Its gone from agrarian to technological.

Canada which started off a conservative collective really glued together by a railway and farmer coops, sure has changed too. Is it capitalist? Some would argue all its economy is controlled by government others, the US, etc. I think its a hybrid of social and capital values and it works. Its got problems of course, but it works. Thank you show me a better system and I will listen. I think our balance of regulation with free enterprise works. It stopped our banks from melting down when the US and Europe went through that mortgage fiasco.

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think communism is evil so much as the totalitarian regimes that were build within the ideologies of ie: Leninism and Maoism are evil. Communism is an economic system, while totalitarianism and democracy are forms of political systems. There's nothing inherent within the economic system that is communism that says that the political institutions that support it must be totalitarian, and there's nothing to say a country with a communist economy can't have a democratic government. If the majority of the people in a country support a communist economy, that's democracy.

Marx's communist theory was mostly an economic theory of history, he wasn't very specific on how any future communist political system should function. Leaders like Lenin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il-Sung etc. were left to fill in the blanks. IMO, Lenin (& later Stalin), Mao, & the freaks in North Korea etc all perverted Marx's writings, to the advantage of their own political power, and took Marx's reference of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" to espouse for a literal dictatorship in government, while the term itself only refers to "a state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power" as opposed to a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" which would describe virtually all capitalist countries (where rich elites rule) according to Marxists . Stalin's USSR or Mao's China can't be described as "a dictatorship of the proletariat" if your average worker in those countries has little to no political power and has to do whatever the elites in the brutal totalitarian governments say.

Also, the question to whether communism as an economic system was effective or not is different to whether is was "good" or "evil".

Both of us agree that " Leninism and Maoism are evil ".

Is communism evil or not?

My opinion: it is evil.

Your opinion: "I don't think communism is evil so much as the totalitarian regimes".

Our positions are not very far away.

Here I give my reason for my opinion.

Let me begin from your idea: "Communism is an economic system." Theoretically, the system assumes that there perfect nation can perfectly arrange everything of economy in one plan, can avoid the economical crisis of the capitalism regime perfectly by that plan, and can also meet the desire of each person perfectly by that plan.

Now let turn away from economy, which we know that such a field with so many complicated factors, no any perfect plan can be made. Let us see mathematical history, even in math such a strict field, there were three great crises had happened. And even in pure logic field, there are many paradoxes.

Now let return to history, we see that where there was communism or even socialism, where there was big famine from which many lives lost (thirty millions lives lost in China because of only one big famine).

Is that communism as an economic system evil or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A true communist country should actually be devoid of any state, currency or class structure. None of the so called Communist countries ever achieved this. And there really wasn't ever a collective ownership of anything in Stalin or Maos visions of communism. A working class rule has really never been achieved in the modern political history of human kind. Human's might even be to corrupt to ever let it happen.

It's not a matter of corruption. It's a matter of being individually biased towards ourselves.

Someone who has the opportunity to better themselves and their lives will rarely deprive himself because of the notion someone else who doesn't have that opportunity will think it unfair. And corrupt.

The reason you can't understand is in fact, based on you not seeing passed your own bias.

Edited by Freddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...