-
HA! Moron.
-
Thats actually a fact
-
No it isn't. You can't categorise "deaths by communism" because you pretty much always have to rely on an institution or government to be responsible for the deaths. Of course, you're probably going to flock to the U.S.S.R. or North Korea or China, [i]but they aren't communist[/i].
-
[quote]Of course, you're probably going to flock to the U.S.S.R. or North Korea or China, [i]but they aren't communist[/i].[/quote]From the Communist Manifesto itself:[quote]The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all right of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c. [/quote]It does not say that all these conditions must be fulfilled for any country to be considered communist, it's just saying that these are some general, slightly vague conditions that will probably have to be met to establishing our vision of a communist society in some specific circumstances. It's also worth noting that the Russian Empire wasn't an "advanced country", so these aren't all exactly applicable.
-
Wouldn't it be so [b]f[/b]ucking awesome if the world was like that? Shame it can never happen, though.
-
Given the lack of context with the extract, it's very likely that Marx is talking about the post-capitalist [i]lower-phase communism[/i]. Known nowadays as socialism.
-
[quote]Given the lack of context with the extract,[/quote]http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html The part I quoted was from II. Here's all the context you need.
-
I still find it dubious. I have my own issues with citing the Manifesto as a primary source of information for communism, but I'm watching Harry Potter, so forgive me for not entertaining your points.
-
[quote]I have my own issues with citing the Manifesto as a primary source of information for communism[/quote]You've got to be kidding me. Unless someone else came up with the idea of Communism before Marx and Engels, what better source would there be for communism that the people who came up with the concept? Sure, it's a translated version, but if I wanted to learn more about Christianity and I found (and could understand) a version of the bible that translated the first bible from its original language, I'd find it pretty damn reliable.
-
Edited by Mister Sparkles : 12/7/2013 4:42:07 PMIt was written relatively early in Marx's life; you could call it "immature" as well as it calling for the necessity of violence. It also doesn't distinguish between socialism and communism, which leads to A LOT of problems, and it is also excessively brief. Simply because it has a relevant title, it doesn't make it the be-all-and-end-all. Ultimately, it's one of Marx's worst books because it detracts attention from other works like Das Kapital.
-
Those are really insignificant reasons.
-
You're really stupid if you think that.
-
Edited by Baltimore sun : 12/7/2013 2:24:04 PMah the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.So i guess the crusades dont count since they weren't following Christ's teachings
-
Edited by Mister Sparkles : 12/7/2013 2:35:51 PMReally? You're going to try and slap me with a No True Scotsman. The fundamental thing that makes me right here is that all of the governments I listed were no more communistic than North Korea is democratic. They literally [i]do not fit the very definition of communism[/i]. What it is which makes communism communism isn't found in those institutions. That's not a No True Scotsman. Also, the Crusade's is far more complicated than that. For one, you don't have the summarised and verifiable pieces of information for Christ's teachings that we do for communism. However, the people who murdered during the Crusade's did so because of their religion. And you want to know the clincher? Their religion doesn't really prohibit murder (not to mention it isn't a doctrine for how to organise society). Christianity only bars death in situations where death is not suitable as punishment. It could be argued that the Muslims were deserving of death. Of course, I don't blame it explicitly on Christianity - that would be silly - I blame it more on Faith, and the danger Faith brings. There's also a sociopolitical dimension because of the trouble caused by knights etc etc. Also, I'm not saying communism has killed no-one. Communists have killed plenty of people throughout history, like almost any other group, I'm simply saying that the assertion that they've killed [i]more[/i] than fascists is retarded.