Is Christianity compatable with Communism

[Dante the Marxist]

Thank you for admitting that I was correct, and you were wrong, about a consumer class existing under communism.

OK, but not in the same way you thought it was.

Name some of the individual rights a communist could exercise that a slave could not.

Freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to live were they choose, freedom of religioun, right to a fair trial, right to leave if they dont like it, freedom to petition and protest, access to all these rights regardless of political views, and freedom to have all these rights regardless of race, age, or gender.

You could not survive without material property.

I could not survive without materials, but I dont need to withhold them from others[ownership] to do so.

If you have no right to the products of your labor (property), then you are a slave.

Incorrect. Can a slave exercize the long list of rights I posted as a response to your question"how is a communist different from a slave?".

You said earlier that you produce, therefore you have a right to consume... but if you have no right to material property, then you have no right to possess that which is necessary for you to engage in consumption.

I dont have to own food to eat it. I can just pick it up and eat it.

Yes. Using force to take something that does not belong to you is a violation of your victims individual rights.

Only if I harm them in the process.

Have you ever been robbed, mugged or had something stolen from you?

Yes.

It didn't "become" a right, the right has always existed but it wasn't recognized, or protected, as an individual right until the enlightenment... which was a few hundred years ago, not a few thousand.

Firstly, property rights first came along in ancient Sumer, which was a couple thousand years ago. Secondly, rights dont exist. There are privileges, because "rights" cannot be taken or given if they just exist. I understand that you are influenced by Ayn Rand? Wouldnt that make you an athiest? If so, then you should be able to see that the "rights" idea is a purely religious ideal.

You require material property to live.

I require MATERIALS to live.

If material property is of no value to you....

Why do you want to redistribute wealth?
Why does material inequality concern you?
Why do you want the "right" to take property from other people?

Currently, just about everything in the world is owned by somebody. In Communism, redistributing wealth would just mean that everyone should be able to get an equal share. Material inequality is a problem of Capitalism that is based on ownership, and today, as I said, everything is owned by someone, but the upper 1 % of the world is withholding everything from the lower 97%. Nowadays, because, as I said, everything is owned by someone, it will have to be taken to be available to everyone.

Without property rights, no other rights can be exercised.

Elaborate please.

If you find answering simple questions too difficult, then you're welcome to stop.

I already explained that statement, and why I consider the property rights argument invalid.

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, but not in the same way you thought it was.

I said there would be a consumer class, you said there wouldn't be one, so then I pointed out for that to be true, you would have to kill (or let die) all the sick, elderly, and disabled. I knew precisely who the members of the consumer class would be, I.E., the non-productive and under-productive members of society.

freedom of religioun,

Not under Communism:
"...Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." - Communist Manifesto chapter 2

Can a slave exercize the long list of rights I posted as a response to your question"how is a communist different from a slave?".

Slaves have no rights, but then again, neither do people living under Communism, they have "privileges", which are subject to whim of a single tyrant (the slave master) or, in the case of a "Democracy" the whim of society (the slave master).

I dont have to own food to eat it. I can just pick it up and eat it.

The moment you take possession of that apple, it becomes your property, at which point your neighbor Fred can take it from you, because you have no right to property.

Only if I harm them in the process.

You said: "If the burgousie dont kindly step out of thier positions of power, then they will need to be pulled out of them by force."
How will you use force, to pull the bourgeoisie out of power, without harming them?

Yes.

That was in response to: Have you ever been robbed, mugged or had something stolen from you?

You didn't specify which one, but when it happened, where you indifferent about it? Did you rationalize the theft by saying to yourself, "I didn't have a right to the property that was taken"?

Firstly, property rights first came along in ancient Sumer,

I very specifically said the concept of property as an individual right. Property rights prior to the enlightenment were held only by kings, nobility and other societal elites.

Secondly, rights dont exist.

Yes they do and I've proven so by an hypothetical example which can also be proven in the real world... But if you really believe rights don't exist, then your entire list of "rights" that Communists would have are not rights at all.

There are privileges, because "rights" cannot be taken or given if they just exist.

That is simply not true. Individual rights cannot be "taken" but they can be denied by force, which is why they must be protected.... "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." So despite their existence, they need protection from those who would violate them.

Masters and Slaves

The mere bestowal of privileges, with the permission to enjoy them, is not the recognition of rights; it is rather an implied denial of their existence. Men do not grant permission nor confer privileges where they recognize rights. The power to permit and to confer, carries with it the power to refuse and to withhold. Both the master and the slave understand this, where permissions are most frequently given. It is injurious to confer, as it is degrading to accept as a boon, what belongs to every man AS man, by absolute and inherent RIGHT. The rights of investigation, of free speech, of mental culture, of religious liberty, and of conscience, are of this class. Man may no more affect to confer them or permit their exercise, than he may presume to take them away. - The American Slave Code in Theory and Practice, Part I, Chapter XXII, William Goodell

Both slaves and Communists are barred from owning property. As you have just stated, Communists, like slaves, do not have rights - only privileges - because Communism doesn't recognize the existence of rights. What you are left with are privileges, granted and taken, by the whims of society.

I understand that you are influenced by Ayn Rand?

Very much so.

Wouldnt that make you an athiest?

I refer to myself as being Non-Religious because most "Atheists" are actually Anti-Theists and I don't want to be associated with those bigots. For more on that particular topic, feel free to visit my Anti-Theism in America thread.

If so, then you should be able to see that the "rights" idea is a purely religious ideal.

No, the source of our rights are neither religious nor social:

The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life. - Ayn Rand

Socialism is Evil.

I require MATERIALS to live.

But if you do not have a right to posses (own) materials, then you cannot consume them and you cannot continue to live.

Currently, just about everything in the world is owned by somebody.

Over time, everything that is owned is either consumed or redistributed.

In Communism, redistributing wealth would just mean that everyone should be able to get an equal share.

But what's the point of redistributing wealth if you cannot own property?

Material inequality is a problem of Capitalism that is based on ownership,

Material inequality is a result of values that you cannot redistribute. You can't redistribute intelligence, physical and mental ability, ambition, a solid work ethic or any of the other values that cause one individual to achieve higher than another. That is the true source of inequality and its not correctable.

the upper 1 % of the world is withholding everything from the lower 97%. Nowadays, because, as I said, everything is owned by someone, it will have to be taken to be available to everyone.

You are nearly there... you've almost verified every statement I made about why...Socialism is Evil:

Socialism teaches that Private Property is slavery, and agitates for the lower 4/5ths of society to dissolve Private Property rights with the promise of obtaining property from the top 5th... Only to find, once having done so, that the top 1% is now the ruling class and above sacrifice for the Collective they rule.

By trying to sacrifice the rights of the top 5th for the Common Good, the bottom 4/5ths sacrifice themselves to slavery at the hands of the superior ruling class, who's rights they sought to destroy. Now slaves to the Common Good - defined for them by their rulers - individuals have no rights and no value beyond what their superiors dictate.

Elaborate please.

Without the right to posses material property (ownership), you will die and therefore be unable to exercise your other rights.

I already explained that statement, and why I consider the property rights argument invalid.

Notice that I don't dismiss any of your arguments as invalid? Rather than trying to avoid an argument by making the claim that its invalid, I prefer to demonstrate that an argument is invalid.

 

[PLC1]

Say, Dante, have you ever read Orwell's 1984? If not, you might find it somewhat enlightening. It was written in 1948, and was intended to describe the future of a Communist society.

Genseca's comment:

top 1% is now the ruling class and above sacrifice for the Collective they rule.

reminded me of the description of the party elite.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

I said there would be a consumer class, you said there wouldn't be one, so then I pointed out for that to be true, you would have to kill (or let die) all the sick, elderly, and disabled. I knew precisely who the members of the consumer class would be, I.E., the non-productive and under-productive members of society.

I always thought that when capitalists mention a consumer class under communism, they meant lazy people, so I assumed that was what you meant. The dangers of steriotyping...

Not under Communism:
"...Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience." - Communist Manifesto chapter 2

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition, which needs illusions."-Marx
So, Marx thought that religion, instead of being forced out, would wither away once the condition that requires it is gone.

Slaves have no rights, but then again, neither do people living under Communism, they have "privileges", which are subject to whim of a single tyrant (the slave master) or, in the case of a "Democracy" the whim of society (the slave master).

No one has any rights no matter what. How does something like a right come to exist? Does God say so? Did we evolve into them? I think people made them up as another way to control people"I have the right, You have no right, etc.".

The moment you take possession of that apple, it becomes your property, at which point your neighbor Fred can take it from you, because you have no right to property.

And Dante licks the apple, Fred refuses to touch it and takes an apple off the tree. OR...Dante, realising that Fred has the apple he was about to eat, makes Fred give it back. OR...Fred is not a sociopath and takes an apple of the tree instead of from someone about to eat it.

You said: "If the burgousie dont kindly step out of thier positions of power, then they will need to be pulled out of them by force."
How will you use force, to pull the bourgeoisie out of power, without harming them?

Well, I cant. However, the act can be justified because of the harm the burgeosie caused.

That was in response to: Have you ever been robbed, mugged or had something stolen from you?

You didn't specify which one, but when it happened, where you indifferent about it? Did you rationalize the theft by saying to yourself, "I didn't have a right to the property that was taken"?

All three have happened, and, in the case of mugging, I would decide that there was nothing I could do about it and went on my merry way. In cases of theft and robbery, I normally manage to take back the object because I need it.

I very specifically said the concept of property as an individual right. Property rights prior to the enlightenment were held only by kings, nobility and other societal elites.

And they are not individuals?

Yes they do and I've proven so by an hypothetical example which can also be proven in the real world... But if you really believe rights don't exist, then your entire list of "rights" that Communists would have are not rights at all.

Yes, but they are things they ar able to do, and it is sure more than we have under capitalism.

That is simply not true. Individual rights cannot be "taken" but they can be denied by force, which is why they must be protected.... "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." So despite their existence, they need protection from those who would violate them.

You are arguing semantics. Denied by force and taken are the same thing. If you are a little kid and the playground bully attacks you and steals your toy, you would say he took it.

Both slaves and Communists are barred from owning property. As you have just stated, Communists, like slaves, do not have rights - only privileges - because Communism doesn't recognize the existence of rights. What you are left with are privileges, granted and taken, by the whims of society.

But, because rights dont exist, these privileges are the best you can get in any society.

Very much so.

We lost another one!

I refer to myself as being Non-Religious because most "Atheists" are actually Anti-Theists and I don't want to be associated with those bigots. For more on that particular topic, feel free to visit my Anti-Theism in America thread.

The Anti-Thiests are only bigots if they are against the religios folk, not the religion.

No, the source of our rights are neither religious nor social:


Socialism is Evil.

I have heard that before, and it sounded like she was saying "I think therefore I am" instead of "I have rights". What Socialism being evil has to do with that, I cannot imagine.

But if you do not have a right to posses (own) materials, then you cannot consume them and you cannot continue to live.

Watch me. I attempt the amazing feat of taking an apple of the tree and eating it.

Over time, everything that is owned is either consumed or redistributed.

What an epiphany...

But what's the point of redistributing wealth if you cannot own property?

When I say property, I mean private property. Property in possesion of the people is an entirely different thing.

Material inequality is a result of values that you cannot redistribute. You can't redistribute intelligence, physical and mental ability, ambition, a solid work ethic or any of the other values that cause one individual to achieve higher than another. That is the true source of inequality and its not correctable.

BUT that is not the problem in today's society. The hardest workers are at the bottom and the lazy yuppie is at the top. A person with the above values, once he realises that life without having more than others is possible, would be able to understand that he doesn't need to be a millionare.

You are nearly there... you've almost verified every statement I made about why...Socialism is Evil:

Because I am not mentioning anything evil?

Socialism teaches that Private Property is slavery, and agitates for the lower 4/5ths of society to dissolve Private Property rights with the promise of obtaining property from the top 5th... Only to find, once having done so, that the top 1% is now the ruling class and above sacrifice for the Collective they rule

And the top one percent starve to death because they are not producing, or, if they are, are not favored in votes because they have oppressive tendencies.

By trying to sacrifice the rights of the top 5th for the Common Good, the bottom 4/5ths sacrifice themselves to slavery at the hands of the superior ruling class, who's rights they sought to destroy. Now slaves to the Common Good - defined for them by their rulers - individuals have no rights and no value beyond what their superiors dictate.

What rulers and superiors? What ruling class? Under communism, such things do not exist.

Without the right to posses material property (ownership), you will die and therefore be unable to exercise your other rights.

You have to have bought an apple to bite into it? I havent noticed.

Notice that I don't dismiss any of your arguments as invalid? Rather than trying to avoid an argument by making the claim that its invalid, I prefer to demonstrate that an argument is invalid.

Notice that, after I dismissed the argument, I continue to argue with you about property anyway.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Say, Dante, have you ever read Orwell's 1984? If not, you might find it somewhat enlightening. It was written in 1948, and was intended to describe the future of a Communist society.

Genseca's comment:



reminded me of the description of the party elite.

I have read nineteen eighty-four, and it is a favorite of mine. I see it as more of a description of monothiesm.

 

[PLC1]

I have read nineteen eighty-four, and it is a favorite of mine. I see it as more of a description of monothiesm.

Monotheism? How? I don't think Orwell thought it had anything to do with monotheism or any other religious concept.

 

[Agnapostate]

Say, Dante, have you ever read Orwell's 1984? If not, you might find it somewhat enlightening. It was written in 1948, and was intended to describe the future of a Communist society.

No, it wasn't. It was intended to describe the future of totalitarian society, and was effectively based on both the Third Reich and the Bolshevik hold over the USSR. Inasmuch as Orwell was himself a socialist, a soldier in the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification during the Spanish Civil War, and a supporter of the anarchist social revolution that occurred, it was hardly an anti-socialist/communist work.

 

[PLC1]

No, it wasn't. It was intended to describe the future of totalitarian society, and was effectively based on both the Third Reich and the Bolshevik hold over the USSR. Inasmuch as Orwell was himself a socialist, a soldier in the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification during the Spanish Civil War, and a supporter of the anarchist social revolution that occurred, it was hardly an anti-socialist/communist work.

About the novel 1984:

Orwell tells us - through the character O'Brien - that Emmanuel Goldstein is the leader of Big Brother, not the friend of the proletariat he pretends to be.

1984, like its predecessor Animal Farm, is a symbolic portrayal of Communism, only this time further advanced.

Animal Farm described the Communist Revolution in Russia. Manor Farm was Russia; the Czar was Jones; Trotsky was Snowball; Stalin was Napoleon; and the USSR was Animal Farm.

1984 describes the world after Communism has achieved its goal of World Domination.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Monotheism? How? I don't think Orwell thought it had anything to do with monotheism or any other religious concept.

Perhaps not, but it helps me see the purpose of monothiesm. Big Brother is God. A single mystical all-powerful supreme being that loves everyone but hates them at the same time. None can truly say wether he exists.

The inner party is the clergy, who made up big brother to control others.

The outer party is the congregation, who are threatened and brainwashed into total submission.

The proles are the part of the population who are not brainwashed, but still crushed by the clergy.

Eastasia and Eurasia are the heathens, something for the clergy to blame for everything and give a perpose to themselves.

Goldstien is the devil, a made-up enemy to distract the proles and outer-party from the injustices.

 

[Dante the Marxist]

About the novel 1984:

The USSR was the opposite of communism.

 

[PLC1]

The USSR was the opposite of communism.

I think your definition of Communism is quite at odds with that of most of the rest of the world.

 

[GenSeneca]

"The abolition of religion... is required for their real happiness...."-Marx
So, Marx thought that religion, instead of being forced out, would wither away once the condition that requires it is gone.

Marx was clearly stating that to attain real happiness, the abolition of illusory happiness (religion) was necessary. Interpreting his statements as you have is a serious misunderstanding of his philosophy.

How does something like a right come to exist? Does God say so?

They are natural, required by nature for survival. Because rights exist independent of government, governments are instituted among men to protect our rights from those who would use force to deny us our rights.

I think people made them up as another way to control people"I have the right, You have no right, etc.".

Pretending rights do not exist is how you hope to control people, "You have no rights, so I can do whatever I want to you."

Well, I cant. However, the act can be justified because of the harm the burgeosie caused.

The Nazi's felt their treatment of Jews was justified for the percieved harm the Jews had caused.

In cases of theft and robbery, I normally manage to take back the object because I need it.

Whether you need it or not, you have no right to that property... or at least you feel that way about people with property you want.

And they are not individuals?

I hope you are not serious... Individual rights belong to all individuals, collective rights belong to certain groups. When property rights were held only by Societies elites, it was a collective right only extended to the elites and denied to individuals who were not members of that group. What you want are more collective rights, whereby you extend "rights" to a certain group (the proletariat) while denying the individual rights of people not in that group.

Yes, but they are things they ar able to do, and it is sure more than we have under capitalism.

1. Communists have no "rights", only permissions, which can be taken away at the drop of a hat.
2. We are not living under Capitalism.

Denied by force and taken are the same thing.

No, they are not. My rights cannot be taken, they will continue to exist, but they can be denied by force. If that bully on the playground punches me in the nose every time I speak, my right to free speech hasn't disappeared, it still exists, he is simply denying me the ability to exercise that right.

The Anti-Thiests are only bigots if they are against the religios folk, not the religion.

They are always bigots... They don't only hate religion, they hate the people who practice and preach religion.

I have heard that before, and it sounded like she was saying "I think therefore I am" instead of "I have rights".

That's because you have never comprehended the meaning of the phrase, Existence exists, A is A.

Property in possesion of the people is an entirely different thing.

That's not what you said before, when you said your neighbor could take your lawnmower and you could take one from someone else.

The hardest workers are at the bottom and the lazy yuppie is at the top.

From another post in another thread:

This guy:

And this guy:

These men both work at the same place yet they have massively different skill sets and abilities - thus, massively different pay.

A person with the above values, once he realises that life without having more than others is possible, would be able to understand that he doesn't need to be a millionare.

And a Socialist, once he realizes that life without having an equal amount of stuff compared to everyone else is possible, would be able to understand that he doesn't need to deny people their individuals rights.

Because I am not mentioning anything evil?

You are saying I have no rights, that rights don't exist, that you should be able to take everything I have worked hard to acquire, that you should have the power to dictate what freedoms I can exercise, that the purpose of my life is to serve others (society), and that my refusal to be your willing slave causes you to feel justified in using force against me... That's pretty Evil.

they have oppressive tendencies.

It is the Collectivists, such as yourself, who have oppressive tendencies, not us Individualists. We Individualists (Capitalists & Classical Liberals) believe that all associations among men should be entirely volitional, while you, a Collectivist, believe that all associations should be compulsory, all men should be forced to live as altruists, forced to be their brothers keeper, and you're willing to use violence to enforce that belief.

What rulers and superiors? What ruling class? Under communism, such things do not exist.

Even Marx pointed out there would necessarily be a ruling elite under communism; the academics, intellectuals, and of course the Communist party leaders. He also said that once the communist revolution achieved its goal, global communism, the ruling class would become superfluous and fade into history... of course such a belief is utter nonsense, those in power do not like to give it up, as you already know in the case of the bourgeoisie, and as was the case in the USSR, Communism only devolves into despotism and tyranny because rather than lose their power, they can simply revoke the "privileges" that give you the illusion of freedom.

 

[Agnapostate]

About the novel 1984:

That's merely repetition of your claim by another person. I understand its basis, because one of the trends that I've encountered in political and economic discussion has been a blatant distortion of the political philosophy of George Orwell by "free marketers," who erroneously cite him at every turn in order to justify their failed philosophy and criticize "socialism," which is misidentified as everything from government preservation of capitalism to Soviet state capitalism.

Excerpts and quotes from Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four provide a basis for an effective misappropriation of Orwell's work. Orwell was an ardent anti-authoritarian and anti-Stalinist, of course, but free marketers with little knowledge of political economy often mistakenly use his advocacy on that front to "argue" against libertarian variants of socialism, an enormous irony given Orwell's own democratic socialism and support of the anarchists and other libertarian socialists in the Spanish Revolution, combined with his military service in the Spanish Civil War. In Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, he expresses support for the aforementioned social revolution, in which horizontal federations of anarchist collectives were formed in several regions of Spain, and the means of production were collectivized and a libertarian socialist economy was established. He has this to say of the heavily anarchist region of Aragon.

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.

His support is not isolated to the region of Aragon, as he has similar words of support regarding the anarchist region of Catalonia, and the city of Barcelona, then placed in the control of anarchist workers and citizens rather than capitalists or Stalinists It's apparent that this work is most indicative of his support for an economic program of libertarian socialism.

This was in late December 1936, less than seven months ago as I write, and yet it is a period that has already receded into enormous distance. Later events have obliterated it much more completely than they have obliterated 1935, or 1905, for that matter. I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do. The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags and with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said 'Senor' or 'Don' or even 'Ústed'; everyone called everyone else 'Comrade' or 'Thou', and said 'Salud!' instead of 'Buenos días'. Tipping had been forbidden by law since the time of Primo de Rivera; almost my first experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of people streamed constantly to and fro, the loud-speakers were bellowing revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small number of women and foreigners there were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls or some variant of militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in this that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for...So far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.

More than that, Orwell is known to have served in the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM in Spanish), an anti-Stalinist libertarian Marxist militia that was later disbanded by the "democratic" government. Orwell is believed to be the tall figure near the back in this photo that stands a head above his comrades.

What strikes me as most amusing about the rightist misappropriation of Orwell's work and legacy is its Orwellian nature. The idea of an anti-socialist using references to Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, works of an avowed socialist and anarchist sympathizer, to attack socialism when the socialist Orwell was attacking the anti-socialist Stalinism...ridiculous, and effectively the equivalent of screeching "freedom is slavery."

I think your definition of Communism is quite at odds with that of most of the rest of the world.

I've not encountered a single self-described socialist or communist that claims that the USSR was at any point "communist," as communism is understood as entailing the abolition of money, markets, and the state. There are a substantial number of them that claim that the internal conditions of the country were socialist, but there are also many that claim that they were in fact state capitalist because the public ownership of the means of production was not implemented and the control by the elites merely matched the capitalist state of affairs.

 

[Agnapostate]

From another post in another thread:

This guy:

And this guy:

These men both work at the same place yet they have massively different skill sets and abilities - thus, massively different pay.

See that? No, I'm not referring to GenSeneca's substantial ignorance of socialist economic theory, which is to be expected. After a tantrum and refusal to respond to my evisceration of his/her posts because I had copied and pasted material that I had written previously into one of my replies, GenSeneca hypocritically engages in the same behavior. Ah...anti-socialists.

 

[PLC1]

See that? No, I'm not referring to GenSeneca's substantial ignorance of socialist economic theory, which is to be expected. After a tantrum and refusal to respond to my evisceration of his/her posts because I had copied and pasted material that I had written previously into one of my replies, GenSeneca hypocritically engages in the same behavior. Ah...anti-socialists.

According to your theory, which is being labeled as communism or marxism, and which has never successfully been put into practice anywhere that I'm aware of, neither the guy selling the snacks nor the one playing the game would be paid anything, as there would be no money used. Each would be able to have whatever he wanted without paying anything, so each would be equal.

In reality, the guy playing ball might continue to play if he enjoyed it, but would only play when he felt like it. the guy selling the goodies would most likely sit down and enjoy them himself, as there would be no incentive for him to continue to disburse free snacks to anyone.

The crowds coming to see the game would not have to pay for tickets, and there would be no authority able to say that there was no more room in the stadium, so the crowds could be quite large, unless, of course, the players decided that it was a nice day for a picnic and that they would play later. if there were a game, then there would be no one able to say to the crowds that it would be a good idea for them to stay in their seats rather than joining the players on the field.

I think I can see why Marxism, as you have defined it, has never been put into practice, can't you?