User Tag List

First 223031323334 Last

Results 311 to 320 of 375

  1. #311
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    So all communism needs is communal property? Under this definition the Native Americans are communist as well.

    Also the USSR and many other communist governments during this time can be easily classified as authortarian (hence ideological vs application).

    The communist manifesto has much more in it than just communal ownership of land.
    I am not calling them Marxists. I never did. I said they lived under religious communism.

    The Pilgrams wanted to return to a state of living like existed with the first generation of Christians. They wanted to create a new utopia and communial living was one of the foundations to this. Their colony was founded based on communual property ownership until 1633 when all lands held in common had been transfered gradually into private hands.

    Communist economic system is a different thing than authortarian government. It just so happens that in USSR they both co-existed.

    The Puritan colony was an example of private land ownership co-existing with a religious authortarian government.

    The Pligrims started out as a democratic government with an economic system based on communal land ownership.

  2. #312
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I am not calling them Marxists. I never did. I said they lived under religious communism.

    The Pilgrams wanted to return to a state of living like existed with the first generation of Christians. They wanted to create a new utopia and communial living was one of the foundations to this. Their colony was founded based on communual property ownership until 1633 when all lands held in common had been transfered gradually into private hands.

    Communist economic system is a different thing than authortarian government. It just so happens that in USSR they both co-existed.

    The Puritan colony was an example of private land ownership co-existing with a religious authortarian government.

    The Pligrims started out as a democratic government with an economic system based on communal land ownership.
    I won't press further, though I enjoyed this mini debate. I still disagree, but if your defintion of communism is just communal ownership, I can't argue further. Not that this one piece can be the single definition of communism, I still tie other principles with it.

  3. #313
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    I won't press further, though I enjoyed this mini debate. I still disagree, but if your defintion of communism is just communal ownership, I can't argue further. Not that this one piece can be the single definition of communism, I still tie other principles with it.
    It's not just my definition. Look in the Websters dictionary.

    Marxism is just one kind of communism.

    Communism refers to an economic system, not a governmental system.

  4. #314
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    I won't press further, though I enjoyed this mini debate. I still disagree, but if your defintion of communism is just communal ownership, I can't argue further. Not that this one piece can be the single definition of communism, I still tie other principles with it.
    Uh, that's what communism is. Communism and Marxism aren't synonymous.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  5. #315
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    I am not calling them Marxists. I never did. I said they lived under religious communism.

    The Pilgrams wanted to return to a state of living like existed with the first generation of Christians. They wanted to create a new utopia and communial living was one of the foundations to this. Their colony was founded based on communual property ownership until 1633 when all lands held in common had been transfered gradually into private hands.

    Communist economic system is a different thing than authortarian government. It just so happens that in USSR they both co-existed.

    The Puritan colony was an example of private land ownership co-existing with a religious authortarian government.

    The Pligrims started out as a democratic government with an economic system based on communal land ownership.

    They lived under religious communism as much as people live under drug adicted, atheistic, promiscuous communism today. Communism is just that, the ism to exist in communes. The pilgrams were quite the progressives. They're religion is just a little different than the religion of progressives today. The pigrams wanted private land ownership to freely practice their religion. The progressives today want to practice their religion on everyone elses land. There is really not much difference between the two.

    The problem i have with pilgrams is that the land they claimed was not theirs to begin with.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  6. #316
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    It's not just my definition. Look in the Websters dictionary.

    Marxism is just one kind of communism.

    Communism refers to an economic system, not a governmental system.
    Sorry, I couldn't help myself, I see a flaw here, can't the land be shared in a communal fashion with different types of economies?

    "1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed"

    (did the not sell, trade, and barter, vs free exhcange)

    "2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively"

    The Final stage being, "classless, stateless and oppression-free society" was this the pilgrims?

    As copied from websters dictionary, even they has different meanings and implications for communism.
    communism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

  7. #317
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by professor goodstain View Post
    They lived under religious communism as much as people live under drug adicted, atheistic, promiscuous communism today. Communism is just that, the ism to exist in communes. The pilgrams were quite the progressives. They're religion is just a little different than the religion of progressives today. The pigrams wanted private land ownership to freely practice their religion. The progressives today want to practice their religion on everyone elses land. There is really not much difference between the two.

    The problem i have with pilgrams is that the land they claimed was not theirs to begin with.
    The Pilgrims were not the same group as the Puritans.

    The Pilgrams in Plymouth usually paid the Native Americans for the land they lived on.

  8. #318
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    You can have state dificeit spending without heavy fiscal regulations on the people. I still stand by that claim.
    Well... yes... in a way, if you don't assume fiscal regulations include taxes, tariffs or other ways of funding. Certainly you can have 'fiscal' regulations like SOX that have nothing to do with deficit spending. However, any government spending comes from the people - the question would be government regulations vs government growth, which doesn't affect what I originally stated - growth per capita was higher in the later half of the 20th century than even during the industrial growth period originally mentioned. And there was higher fiscal regulation and higher deficit spending, so it's a bit harder to work out.

    If that is the case for the US as well, then obvioulsy I may be unaware, through proof of such in Canada doesn't prove such in the US.
    Which is why I asked about the mechanics. I read about NY state laws and couldn't see how it was done.

    You connecting spending with government size, (not so say that their isn't any connection), but tax the amount collected from the people say more than what the government spent. Also the cold war has a lot to do with the spending patterns here. Especially with Reagan when he uped the pressure.
    Federal spending is towards the bottom half of the page.

    Now your taking this as all spending is bad, thing work on a cost/benefit spectrum, if you believe the benifits outweight the cost, or that the outcome is worth the cost, then the action is taken, not that mistakes haven't been made in our history, but I still stand firm that both sides do care about the costs.
    No, I'm saying that the side that wants something does not care about the cost - they automatically think it is "good" because ideology blinds them to the overall costs. It should matter, but people continue to ignore it.

  9. #319
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    Sorry I see a flaw here, can't the land be shared in a communal fashion with different types of economies?
    Have you simply looked up the definition of the word communism in any general dictionary?

  10. #320
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    The Pilgrims were not the same group as the Puritans.

    The Pilgrams in Plymouth usually paid the Native Americans for the land they lived on.
    Then shouldn't the progressive communists of today pay the religious communists to live on their land?
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

Similar Threads

  1. Why are you here?
    By rhinosaur in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 06:08 AM
  2. Religion... why?
    By wyrdsister in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 04:31 PM
  3. Why I am here
    By HilbertSpace in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 01:18 AM
  4. Why?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 06:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO