Posted on 03/22/2005 6:56:35 AM PST by metacognative
Shameless Lie placemark.
If they support the idea of a continuing powerful state, theu are not True Communists. No True Communist supports the idea of a continuing powerful state
Well, Diogenes, do you need oil for your lantern?
Communism is a term that can refer to one of several things: a social and economic system, an ideology which supports that system, or a political movement that wishes to implement that system.
As a theoretical social and economic system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production and no social class. In communism, all property is owned by the community as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status. Theoretically, human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of property as needed. This is thus often the system proposed to solve the problem of the poverty cycle.
> Perhaps the best known maxim of a communist society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This economic model is also referred to as a gift economy.
> As a political movement, communism is a branch of the broader socialist movement. The communist movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through various things - such as, for example, the communist desire to establish a gift economy, and their commitment to revolutionary strategies for overthrowing capitalism.
If I ask you what the moral theories of a capitalist are, are you going to tell me it's the behavior of some particular government? What a disengenuous display you've put on here--while accusing me of lying. Is there no depth to which you will not sink to avoid acknowledging the painfully obvious?
Possibly,
Possibly,...like Jesus advised the Rich man to do? I should rest my case, eh?
but they weren't a state or a nation(they paid taxes).
Which is relevant how?
And you conveniently leave out things, but we already know that.
You mean like the irrelevent attempts to divert discussion to universalized-into-meaninglessness, or unrelated issues you have displayed your mastery of here?
So go on with your delusion. I am finished with this discussion since I have demonstrated your complete incoherence on this subject.
Right, happy to. It's I who cannot seem to acknowledge a simple declarative sentence that Jesus spoke.
Your own citation puts a torpedo into your argument.---Theoretically, human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of property as needed.
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
You are now at the abyss level.
Well, thanks for your admission but it is obvious to the most casual observer that you cannot comprehend that Jesus statement was a spiritual statement and not a recommendation for a form of government nor of a financial transaction.
While you are thinking about that, what do you think of the moral stature of someone who accuses me of being anti-god, because I criticise religeous institutions he apparently has decided to carry the cudgels for?
What do you think of the moral stature of someone who implies he's going to bring in mommy to punish someone he can't stand up to a debate with?
Do you think Jesus would have wanted you on his defense team, with this kind of behavior?
When did the two things become mutually exclusive? In what manner is cashing out all your equity and giving it to others not a financial transaction?
It was your words in my mouth, that abject poverty was the goal of communism. I did not say that, you said it, and it is wrong, as I not-to-long-ago explained.
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Uh, huh. Just as a communist would advise, for the reasons you just now explained, while erroneously thinking you were refuting something I said.
Please read and understand English. I put "recommendation" and a conjunction(nor) together for a purpose. I don't know how much deeper than an abyss you can get, but I suppose it is hot wherever that is.
I didn't put any words in your mouth. I'm saying Jesus made a spiritual statement. Giving up everything you own is not something a capitalist nor a communist would like to do as a part of their form of government or financial dealings.
I recommend the same to you, since you do not seem to understand that, regardless of whatever else it may be--cashing all your equity and giving it to someone else is, without a doubt, a financial transaction, under the rules of the King's english.
Please go back to the wikipedia article, and reread what "gift economy" means. Of course giving up everything you own is a communist moral precept--giving up the entire concept of owning, in fact. Leave off your concerns about "forms of government" since that is an obvious red herring--which you have uselessly introduced, before you found out, one might hope, from the wikipedia article that you had that entirely wrong anyway--when talking about moral precepts.
And you better study English, because I did not say it was not a financial transaction, I said it was not a recommendation of a financial transaction. The "nor" is used for a reason. It joins things. If you want it more wordy then I will repeat it this way.
Well, thanks for your admission but it is obvious to the most casual observer that you cannot comprehend that Jesus statement was a spiritual statement. It was not a recommendation for a form of government. It was not a recommendation of a financial transaction.
Please go back to the wikipedia article, and reread what "gift economy" means. Of course giving up everything you own is a communist moral precept--giving up the entire concept of owning, in fact. Leave off your concerns about "forms of government" since that is an obvious red herring--which you have uselessly introduced, before you found out, one might hope, from the wikipedia article that you had that entirely wrong anyway--when talking about moral precepts.
I don't subscribe to your demand that I accept your version of things.
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
No thanks. It looked like gibberish before, so I ignored it, not realizing you were trying to set a beartrap so you could dodder on about some other form of irrelevancy.
Well, thanks for your admission but it is obvious to the most casual observer that you cannot comprehend that Jesus statement was a spiritual statement. It was not a recommendation for a form of government. It was not a recommendation of a financial transaction.
Whatever else it was, spiritual or not, tt was, plain as the nose on your face, a recommendation of a financial transaction: the transfer of all the rich man's equity to the poor people in the neighborhood.
You are now verifiably a liar. Case closed.
It says about the same thing in any other encyclopedia--because it's extremely common knowledge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.