Communism is the future

Bill Fishlore said:
Communism isn't anybody's future. It is a failed system that has been rejected by its citizens whenever they have had the opportunity to do so. Communism is a malignant form of Socialism. "Democracy is the path to Socialism," Karl Marx observed. Lenin created a perverted variety of the Socialism so popular in his day, replacing democracy with a "revolutionary vanguard" (self-appointed, of course) which would seize power and govern as the "dictatorship of the proletariat." The totalitarian command economy gave Russia, China and other followers of Lenin the ability to make spectacular economic progress for several generations but at a brutal cost to the people. So what? The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt achieved spectacular economic progress too. Slave plantations make a lot of money. Eventually, the Communist model collapsed pretty much everywhere. People want to run their own lives. Economic power corrupts just as political power corrupts.

Socialism, however, has thriven steadily for more than a century. There is no 100% socialized economy, of course, but the nations with the highest standards of living and the happiest citizenry are the countries with working democracies and the highest degree of socialization in the economy. That's a fact.
Click to expand...
I'm no advocate for command economies by a long shot. Like supply side economics and laissez faire capitalism they simply don't work.

I have pointed for a long time to free market fundamentalist and the illiterate that there is a time and a place for socialism when markets fail to provide needed goods and services then it is an appropriate function of government to help provide goods and services that the market cannot or will not.

The knee jerk response by free market fundamentalist to this self evident observation is to argue that you oppose market economies when in reality you're observing the self evident observation that markets have their limits.

What bothers me the most about free market fundamentalist is that they often use their unworkable ideology to demonize public investment when it is needed and the market is failing to provide that investment. They also fail to recognize the critical importance of public/private technology transfer, as an example, that often result from public investment. The internet, for example, wouldn't exist without such a transfer of knowledge.

Having said that when markets do provide needed goods and services then government needs to stay out of the way except to regulate those markets to provide a fair and level playing field and to protect public interest and to protect consumers.

Without that legitimate function of government markets simply don't work.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I'm no advocate for command economies by a long shot. Like supply side economics and laissez faire capitalism they simply don't work.

I have pointed for a long time to free market fundamentalist and the illiterate that there is a time and a place for socialism when markets fail to provide needed goods and services then it is an appropriate function of government to help provide goods and services that the market cannot or will not.

The knee jerk response by free market fundamentalist to this self evident observation is to argue that you oppose market economies when in reality you're observing the self evident observation that markets have their limits.

What bothers me the most about free market fundamentalist is that they often use their unworkable ideology to demonize public investment when it is needed and the market is failing to provide that investment. They also fail to recognize the critical importance of public/private technology transfer, as an example, that often result from public investment. The internet, for example, wouldn't exist without such a transfer of knowledge.

Having said that when markets do provide needed goods and services then government needs to stay out of the way except to regulate those markets to provide a fair and level playing field and to protect public interest and to protect consumers.

Without that legitimate function of government markets simply don't work.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't have to worry about market purists winning the day anytime soon, because the Cult of Trump has derailed their efforts, as the Trumptards demand that Douchebag Donald insert himself heavily into the economy. I'm sure they get a thrill every time he works a deal with yet another CEO.
 
Vengeance said:
https://streamable.com/52yx7
Click to expand...

biglaugh7_zpsd701e485.gif
 
iolo said:
Jesus was, of course, the nearest thing to a communist there was in his time. Read up on the early Church and ask yourself whether your evil obsession with money and competition is compatible with anything decent.
Click to expand...

No he wasn't you insufferable moron. In fact, he was anti-big government and was persecuted by it.

Dunce.
 
Pocahontas said:
Apparently, you don't have to worry about market purists winning the day anytime soon, because the Cult of Trump has derailed their efforts, as the Trumptards demand that Douchebag Donald insert himself heavily into the economy. I'm sure they get a thrill every time he works a deal with yet another CEO.
Click to expand...
True dat.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Norah....Skidmark is fishing. He's been trolling people with his Communist schtick since Damo first started JPP. His target are people who are naive enough to believe that anyone actually supports communism. He particularly tries to get under the skin of anyone who thinks that public investment or subsidies for anyone but farmers and investment bankers is creeping socialism.

Don't fall for it. Getting fished by Skidmark is about as low as a JPP member can fall. With the exception of dating Grind. You can't get any lower than that.
Click to expand...
What is he such a sad bastard, can't anybody get him some poontang? Is he really that ugly)

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
The teachings of Jesus are hard to identify with certainty, but there is evidence within the Gospels that a form of collective socialism was practiced among his disciples during his lifetime and clear statement in Acts that the practice continued among them under James in the period following his death.

In his letters, Paul does not require collective socialism of the members of the churches he founded and instructs, so it is likely that the practice was confined to the Jerusalem church leaders.

The importance of charity and the preferential option for the poor are clearly contained in a number of the most reliable statements by Jesus in the gospels, but these would seem to be virtuous acts on a voluntary basis in anticipation of the apocalyptic arrival of the Son of Man. Prior to that event, the teachings of Jesus and his original followers do not have any component pointing to radical change in government policy or in social structure.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
The teachings of Jesus are hard to identify with certainty, but there is evidence within the Gospels that a form of collective socialism was practiced among his disciples during his lifetime and clear statement in Acts that the practice continued among them under James in the period following his death.

In his letters, Paul does not require collective socialism of the members of the churches he founded and instructs, so it is likely that the practice was confined to the Jerusalem church leaders.

The importance of charity and the preferential option for the poor are clearly contained in a number of the most reliable statements by Jesus in the gospels, but these would seem to be virtuous acts on a voluntary basis in anticipation of the apocalyptic arrival of the Son of Man. Prior to that event, the teachings of Jesus and his original followers do not have any component pointing to radical change in government policy or in social structure.
Click to expand...
Not even John the Baptist?
 
The Mysterious Baptizer

John the Baptizer is an intriguing component of the Gospels, which appear to be rather starkly edited to subordinate his ministry to that of Jesus. What we can assume with some certainty about him is that he was a fiery apocalyptic preacher whose baptism ritual signified allegiance by very large number of Jews, including his cousin, Jesus, who began his ministry as one of John's disciples (a fact the Gospels are anxious to minimize). John's preaching was certainly highly critical of the Herodian monarchy -- it cost him his head. But there is no suggestion that he preached any form of radical socialism rather than the overthrow of the collaborationist regime. Upon John's death, it appears that Jesus took over the leadership of the movement, continuing its apocalyptic message without adding any immediate social program.
 
Bill Fishlore said:
The teachings of Jesus are hard to identify with certainty, but there is evidence within the Gospels that a form of collective socialism was practiced among his disciples during his lifetime and clear statement in Acts that the practice continued among them under James in the period following his death.

In his letters, Paul does not require collective socialism of the members of the churches he founded and instructs, so it is likely that the practice was confined to the Jerusalem church leaders.

The importance of charity and the preferential option for the poor are clearly contained in a number of the most reliable statements by Jesus in the gospels, but these would seem to be virtuous acts on a voluntary basis in anticipation of the apocalyptic arrival of the Son of Man. Prior to that event, the teachings of Jesus and his original followers do not have any component pointing to radical change in government policy or in social structure.
Click to expand...

The bleeding heart Liberals of today try to equate the teachings of Jesus with mandated socialism. Jesus taught charity. Charity is a voluntary action by the giver not a mandate by the taker.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top