The Gaming Den

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:26 am

NPR probably don't host Communists because any true Communist (defined as "Following the Communist Manifesto", and not the revisionist crap they wrote afterwards when the Manifesto proved to be a pile of shit) is a fucking nutcase who advocates bloody revolution in the name of abolishing private property and handing everything over to the government -- Without considering for one moment that governments can become highly corrupt and thus become the new "class" that would exploit the masses.

Communists nowadays are really just advocates of either "Worker's Rights" or "Extensive Government-Provided Basic Services" (often labelled as Socialism, despite not really being Socialism).

Both of which are valid causes that are not helped at all by attention whores who try to be shocking by calling themselves Communists.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:21 am

I am a communist; I advocate the nationalization of the majority of businesses and the government appointing government officals to administer these businesses as a non-profit organizations devoted to providing their product and/or service to the public as a utility. I don't advocate bloody revolution, or the abolishment of private property. That just isn't a realistic goal.

For Valor · Post by **For Valor** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:37 am

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The way Grek says that, it sounds like he wants bloody revolution and the abolishment of private property...

wait...

Ohshit.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:55 am

Grek wrote:I am a communist; I advocate the nationalization of the majority of businesses and the government appointing government officals to administer these businesses as a non-profit organizations devoted to providing their product and/or service to the public as a utility. I don't advocate bloody revolution, or the abolishment of private property. That just isn't a realistic goal.

What you're advocating is closer to socialism, in that businesses are nationalized and thereafter run as non-profit orgs.

What I'm referring to specifically are Communists as defined by the Communist Manifesto. Which ends with a call for revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... o/ch04.htm

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Since then, we've had about as many kinds and definitions of Communism as we do of Christianity. But based on the original document outlining the Communist ideal, violent revolution is in fact part and parcel of the deal. Which is why it sucked and Marx is an idiot.

Personally, Communism isn't really a useful term anymore. You can much more easily say "I support worker's rights" without the stupid historical baggage Communism has.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:12 am

From what I can gather a lot of people on this board are commies (including yours truly), and none of them seem to support bloody revolution, or the abolition of private property.

I find it odd that you don't realize this, since you complain about the political atmosphere of the Den a lot.

Revolutions need not be bloody in nature; even though Marx thought that the emancipation of the lower classes was something that had to be fought for by force, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily has to be.

One doesn't have to agree with every single thing Marx said to be a Communist.

Indeed, you seem to be the only one who's saying all of Marx's ideas are either good or bad.

And the abolition of private property was supposed to be something that just happened over time once socialism had been established, much like the shift from the slave state to feudalism, or feudalism to capitalism.

Whether or not it would actually happen is debatable.

And as for "stupid historical baggage", that can be said about any philosophy, ever.

Example: "I believe in promoting peace and love" instead of "I am a Christian"

I'd be willing to bet that this devolves into a No True Scotsman argument.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:35 am

And I find it funny that people on this board tend to complain about Christian dogma a lot, and dismiss any notion that "Maybe not all Christians follow dogma".

And yet when I show that Communist dogma in fact does say that "Violent revolution is part of the deal", people start whining.

Call yourself whatever you want. Even though you're not even a communist based on the original Manifesto since you don't want to abolish private property - a key defining element of Communism (it's Communism's end goal).

But again, violent revolution is part of the original Communist ideal. That baggage is gonna stick too.

Me, I just support Worker's Rights. Because an issue as important as this doesn't need bullshit baggage from idiots like Marx.

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:57 am

Don't put words in my mouth; I never said all Christians follow dogma.

And I would hardly call "peace and love" dogma; in fact, I'd say it's a fairly positive view of the religion for the Den.

Anyways, you're the one who brought up Christianity in the first place.

You said that Marxism has as many branches as Christianity, so I used the same example.

It could have just been as easily "I believe in personal freedom" instead of "I am a libertarian".

Or something else entirely.

And congratulations for pulling the No True Scotsman argument out.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:35 am

Zinegata is apparently trying to prove that my words oppose yours, and therefore you are being hypocritical.

He's failing for three key reasons:

1) He never actually reads or understands anything I say, because it's more fun for him to whine about bigotry than to actually try to understand what specifically is being claimed.

2) He cannot tell the difference between a defining belief IE, one must believe morals are "real" in order to be a moral realist, vs correlating beliefs, IE belief in revolution is highly correlated with communists.

3) He is incapable of discerning that you and I are different people, and that when multiple people disagree with him, they do not in fact, magically fuse into a single person who must remain consistent with every other person disagreeing with him.

He will now proceed to whine about how I'm a bigot, and blah blah, he won't read what I say anymore (like he ever did in the first place), and demonstrate for me that he does not understand what I am saying.

He will do this, because he is incapable of reacting to being wrong in any manner besides crazy.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:43 am

Ok, Kaelik decided to "grace" us with his stupidity. If it wasn't useless shit before, it is gonna be full of useless shit now.

Rabbit, again, use whatever label you want to define yourself with. But again, how you describe yourself is pretty far off from that original vision of communism.

Bye.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:16 pm

Eradication of private property is only going to happen through bloody revolution and aggressive enforcement.

Communism necessarily has to be tied to that; the monkeysphere probably won't let humanity collective give up their shit for someone they don't know without severe threats to back it up.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:25 pm

mean_liar wrote:Eradication of private property is only going to happen through bloody revolution and aggressive enforcement.

Communism necessarily has to be tied to that; the monkeysphere probably won't let humanity collective give up their shit for someone they don't know without severe threats to back it up.

They said exactly the same thing about income taxes and the National Parks. The fact is that when you nationalize stuff, you get some yahoos threatening to go gault or whatever, but they never actually do.

For all the posturing, if there was actually a law that was passed where the men in blue helmets came to take everyone's guns, people would just fucking turn them in. People don't like paying taxes, and they don't like giving things up to the government, but that doesn't mean that they won't do it.

-Username17

Goldor · Post by **Goldor** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:34 pm

People put up with things they don't like here yes, but few of them are actually strongly opposed, paying taxes? Yeah don't like to do that, but it's needed for maintenance of roads and such. National parks? I give a damn, it's not important really, I don't know any one that does give a damn.

Blue helmets coming to take our guns? Yeah the UN just declared war on the people of the US, and a good majority of the military regardless of orders, would be up in arms with the people. You personally might just fucking turn them in, but that's your bloody choice, and ours will be to kill them stupid motherfuckers.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:52 pm

Because when this:

rocks up to take this:

away from you, you'll let them know who's boss!

(I know Frank was the one who said the fuzz would be there asking for them, but at the point where the government actually decides to go through with such a thing, they know to just let the military do it.)

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:05 pm

But that's exactly it. The NRA's nightmare doomsday line-in-the-sand scenario is currently the US teaming up with the UN to disarm the populace. That won't happen, not because NRA types keep threatening that they will rise up in armed revolt against the state should it occur, but because it is pointless. However, if it did happen, people would in fact go along with it, exactly like how they went along with income tax.

To this day, there are people who believe that Income Tax is the greatest evil that has ever been. Before it was passed in 1913 their voices were louder, and they threatened that the country would rise up in revolt against such trespasses of liberty. And they were wrong. The fact is that there are in fact reasons for income tax, and though the vast majority of the population does not know what they are, they go along with it anyway. Because people don't actually like taking arms against the state and it takes really severe stimuli to get them to do that. And as long as they are eating every day and aren't getting shot at, chances are those stimuli do not exist.

When Income Tax came down in 1913, the government declared that they were going to seize your money. Your money. Just because you earned it and they wanted it. And people hemmed and hawed and threatened civil war, and that talk was just talk. When the Antiquities Act came down the pipe in 1906, allowing the government to declare land itself to be off limits for private ownership based solely on the President deciding that it was a historical landmark, people also protested. People who in a few generations would be reading Atlas Shrugged said that we were on the road to Communism and that the militia would rise to fight off the encroachment of the state. And while they were technically right about the whole road to communism thing, the revolts did not actually occur. Also, that's a really long road apparently.

The fact is that people pontificate about how the next bit of government encroachment into the lives and private property of its citizenry is going to be "too far" and that guns will be drawn. But it never ever is. The one and only time people have actually taken arms against the state in defense of private property in the US was in 1861, when Southern aristocrats were afraid that the government was going to take away their right to own people as private property. And I would also point out: they fucking lost, and the government took their property away even faster for them having done so.

In reality, the vast majority of people don't really own much "property" and don't really give a rat's ass whether the government seizes it or not. You are not actually going to take to the hills and become a bandit over a $350 pistol, because staying in your apartment and eating hot food every day is worth more to you than that.

-Username17

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:00 pm

Frank Trollman's being stupid again in the name of Communism. Which isn't a surprise because the original Communist ideal is really stupid unless you subject it to a lot of revisions.

Also, like Karl Marx, Frank Trollman employs a similar technique that was used in the Communist Manifesto: Citing irrelevant or outright incorrect historical facts to justify what is in essence highway robbery.

For instance, citing the 1913 income tax is just blatant misidirection on Frank's part. Americans had been paying taxes to the Federal government well before 1913. It was nothing new, shocking, or revolt-worthy for them in 1913. In fact, the 1913 ammendment was just resolving a State vs Federal Government issue over taxation and revenue allocation. It was NOT a law giving the Federal Government the power to issue a tax for the first time ever.

Also, State vs Federal Govt was also the main reason for the Civil War, not "Government wants to sieze Southern property". Seriously. Lincoln was fully prepared to allow slavery to continue existing in the South if it meant averting war. The South decided to say "Fuck you" to him anyway.

Moreover... let me cite one undeniable historical fact to blow Frank's delusions out of the water:

Back in the 1700s, when America was still a British colony, the British tried to impose taxes on the Americans.

The Americans revolted over this very issue in response. They won.

So he's talking out of his ass when he says people who complain about taxes are "all talk" and are destined to lose.

Again, taxation was the entire causus belli for the American Revolution. And by extension, America's existence. So when he says "People won't give a rat's ass about the government seizing his property", he's being delusional. People - Americans especially - DO give a damn about their property.

Moreover, people have tried to institute states without private property. They tried it in Cambodia. It did not end well. Because trying to abolish private property invariably ends up becoming "Kill people without guns and take their stuff for our own use!"

--------

Again Communism - by its original definition - doesn't even advocate peaceful change. It says right out that the only way to change the world is via violent revolution.

If you don't believe in violence, you're not actually a Communist in the original sense.

If you don't believe in abolishing private property, it'd be hard to call you a Communist in any sense.

If you believe only in greater government control over business to provide basic services (and assuming the government is transparent and democractic), then you're more properly termed a Welfare State Advocate, or a Socialist.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:10 pm

Point of fact: the American Revolution was not in opposition to taxes. It was in opposition to a lack of representation in parliament. The line "No Taxation without Representation!" did not, and does not mean that the colonials didn't want to pay taxes. It meant that they wanted to have representatives. Tax refusal was not the goal, it was the threat that the colonials were using to try to leverage the crown into hearing their petitions in parliament.

The crown refused of course, and the people paid their taxes to the revolutionary government, and ultimately the colonies broke off. But it was never about people rioting in the streets that taxes were too high. Taxes in the colonies were lower than they were in the home country. The point was that they wanted seats in parliament and the British government wasn't giving them up.

For fuck's sake, you could wikipedia this shit. I know you aren't American and don't get this in 8th grade, but try to look it up before you have keyboard diarrhea and demonstrate for sure, again that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:14 pm

mean_liar wrote:Eradication of private property is only going to happen through bloody revolution and aggressive enforcement.

Communism necessarily has to be tied to that; the monkeysphere probably won't let humanity collective give up their shit for someone they don't know without severe threats to back it up.

This is not actually true. There are lots of places the world over, some even fairly technologically advanced in which people voluntarily cede property rights to the collective. And then people use whatever they want to use, and resolve disputes about use through means other than claims of ownership.

It's never worked on a scale over roughly a thousand people that I've ever heard of, but communes actually do exist, and they aren't founded by bloody revolution.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:28 pm

Cherry-picking? Again?

Blatantly cherry-picking historical facts works only on the stupid, Trollman. Why do you think only morons like you suck up to shit like Marx's Communist Manifesto with its stinking pile of historical horseshit to justify highway robbery?

"No taxation without representation" was a rallying cry of the American colonists. But it was not the only rallying cry.

In fact, one other popular cry was "Give me liberty, or give me death", which basically says "Screw representation! We want independence!"

So really, you're just cherry-picking one of the many, many reasons for the American revolt - which was a desire for repesentation in the British Parliament. A desire which was eventually overidden by the desire for independence.

In comparison - opposition to British taxation was a goal of the revolution from start to finish. From the burning of a British Warship, to boycotting goods covered by the Stamp Act, to the Boston Tea Party. The last act culminated in the British blockade of Boston (and lead to the Boston Massacre) - an act of repression that triggered the Colonists into preparing for war.

So really, "representation" was a minor issue from start to finish - a peaceful alternative that neither side vigorously pursued. The Brits wanted to tax the Americans. The Americans defied the Brits. The Brits slapped down on Boston hard. War followed.

And no, I recited this all from memory. I watch a lot of Discovery Channel!

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:34 pm

Zinegata wrote: Again, taxation was the entire causus belli for the American Revolution. And by extension, America's existence.

What the fuck?

Check out this little document that list's the grievances the colonies had with the King. Taxation without consent was just one of many reasons.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html wrote: He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

[edit:]
I should add since ya posted while I was posting...

Give me Liberty or Give me Death ties in much more with the non-taxation related grievances.

And if you think being taxed is a worse grievance than people getting away with murder literally, then well, rational discourse has left the building.

[further edit:]
If I were living in those conditions then the taxes would likely not even be on my top 10 complaints. It would simply be the exclamation point to asking, "What is this King good for and why do we pay him?!"

Of course refusal to pay taxes to England was the response to these grievances. What else could they do? Invade England? No. Telling the king there will be no more taxation is basically telling him off since the resources of colonies were all he wanted.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:36 pm

Fine. One of the main reasons. As I already noted in the post right before yours, there were many reasons. Happy?

Also, "Give me Liberty or give me death" gained impetus after the Brits slammed hard against Boston. And the ultimate roots of this was again taxation.

Read previous post.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:41 pm

Fucking A, I mean, no true scotsmanning communism to communists is funny, but your US history is like, maybe a homeschooled American south history. That you believe taxation was more important than lack of representation means you actually haven't even read the declaration of independence.

Every problem could be traced back to the way the colonies were treated as second class citizens. Drop the trite phrases that didn't even mean that much back then, and talk about things like a sensible person.

Zinegata · Post by **Zinegata** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:43 pm

Every problem could be traced back to Kaelik cherry-picking whatever argument he wants because he's that big of a shit head.

Hence, no sense biting to your trolling. Bye!

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:53 pm

Zinegata wrote:Every problem could be traced back to Kaelik cherry-picking whatever argument he wants because he's that big of a shit head.

This statement doesn't even make sense. What the fuck are you calling a problem, and how do I cause the problem of you and Frank disagreeing without even posting?

Or are you just throwing out pathetic childish insults that aren't even supposed to mean anything, and are less intellectually meaningful than poopy head?

Zinegata wrote:Hence, no sense biting to your trolling. Bye!

Wow, everyone in TGD is going to love me at this rate, if every time I call you on being a dumbass you run away from the thread, then everyone will be begging me to come to their threads so they can have productive conversations without your stupidity getting in the way.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:54 pm

Eradication of private property.

Not this or that, but everything.

Peacable death by a thousand cuts and slippery slope predictions of how to avoid bloody revolution don't really work as, as the Declaration so notes: those tiny cuts were all duly recorded and then fought over.

Kaelik wrote:It's never worked on a scale over roughly a thousand people that I've ever heard of, but communes actually do exist, and they aren't founded by bloody revolution.

The problems come when communities clash over common resources. Say, water. Or arable land. ...just like primitive tribes did.

Communism is a nice idea that is unworkable. There are too many ways for it to fail, notably by resting on the assumption that people actually want a classless society and are willing to give up what they own as well as the possibility that they could own even more, for the sake of a communal good that has never actually worked all that well in practice.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:22 pm

mean_liar wrote:The problems come when communities clash over common resources. Say, water. Or arable land. ...just like primitive tribes did.

So? When that happens Communes settle such clashes in one manner or another, violence, negotiation, merging, ect.

Doesn't actually have anything to do with the fact that private property is given up voluntarily quite often without bloody revolution.