• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Communism

Funny, my google gives

noun
noun: communism
  1. a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
    synonyms: collectivism, state ownership, socialism, radical socialism; More
    Sovietism, Bolshevism, Marxism, neo-Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism
    "the social and economic principles of communism"
Origin
52c7d63fdd6c0d6cfc5767b4d30f0b2716a1bb0a8d66160d5fbf9a54d2612de9.png

mid 19th century: from French communisme, from commun (see common).

See
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+communism&oq=define+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59l3.3363j0j8

Would you mind providing your search link for me to check?

And even so the Google text doesnt inject the invective you so kindly provided

https://www.google.com/search?q=com...droid-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Like that?
 
You keep repeating yourself without explaining yourself.

What do you want?

Communism definition

"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
synonyms: collectivism, state ownership, socialism, radical socialism;
Sovietism, Bolshevism, Marxism,neo-Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism
"the social and economic principles of communism"

Socialism definition

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More

  • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism;
    communism, Bolshevism;
    radicalism, militancy;
    progressivism, social democracy;
    laborism;
    Marxism, Leninism,Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism,Trotskyism, Maoism
  • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."
See how similar they are?

Does that explain it?
 
So droughts are predictable... Ok

Of course it is predictable that droughts sometimes happen. I knew this when I was a child.

Just because you can't predict when something will happen doesn't excuse you for being unprepared when it does.

Millions? Maybe but that is a grossly exaggerated upper limit to a eild guess that encompasses between tens of thousands up to a million.

Upper limit is over 3 million, but whether or not it was 'merely' hundreds of thousands makes zero difference to the point that it was caused by the government's incompetence.

And who turned them into a closed country weary of outside interference?

Their government

Yes, and ,NK didnt, your point is?

My point is that it was the fault of the government that they mismanaged the economy to such an extent that many people died of starvation.

You don't think that poor governance contributed significantly to the death toll?

Tell that to the brits after the brexit food stockpiles run out

I guarantee that we will not see hundreds of thousands of Brits starving to death.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
As one of the few Marxists on the forum, most of the answers in this thread are misconceptions, in Engels words:

Question 1 : What is Communism?
Answer : Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

Question 2 : What is the proletariat?
Answer : The proletariat is that class in society which draws its means of livelihood wholly and solely from the sale of its labour and not from the profit from any kind of capital;[2] whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose whole existence depends on the demand for labour, hence, on the alternations of good times and bad in business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The proletariat, or class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the nineteenth century.
Question 3 : Proletarians, then, have not always existed?
Answer : No. Poor folk and working classes have always existed, and the working classes have mostly been poor. But there have not always been workers and poor people living under the conditions just stated; in other words, there have not always been proletarians any more than there has always been free and unbridled competition.
...
Question 5 : Under what conditions does this sale of the labour of the proletarians to the bourgeoisie take place?
Answer: Labor is a commodity, like any other, and its price is therefore determined by exactly the same laws that apply to other commodities. In a regime of big industry or of free competition – as we shall see, the two come to the same thing – the price of a commodity is, on the average, always equal to its cost of production. Hence, the price of labor is also equal to the cost of production of labor.

But, the costs of production of labor consist of precisely the quantity of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life.

However, since business is sometimes better and sometimes worse, it follows that the worker sometimes gets more and sometimes gets less for his commodities. But, again, just as the industrialist, on the average of good times and bad, gets no more and no less for his commodities than what they cost, similarly on the average the worker gets no more and no less than his minimum.

This economic law of wages operates the more strictly the greater the degree to which big industry has taken possession of all branches of production.

...

Question 7 : In what way does the proletarian differ from the slave?
Answer : The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly. The individual slave, the property of a single master, is already assured an existence, however wretched it may be, because of the master's interest. The individual proletarian, the property, as it were, of the whole bourgeois class, which buys his labour only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence. This existence is assured only to the proletarian class as a whole. The slave is outside competition, the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries. The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of civil society; the proletarian is recognized as a person, as a member of civil society. Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, but the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and himself stands on a higher level than the slave. The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian himself; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.

Question 8 : In what way does the proletarian differ from the serf?
Answer : The serf enjoys the possession and use of an instrument of production, a piece of land, in exchange for which he hands over a part of his product or performs labour. The proletarian works with the instruments of production of another for the account of this other, in exchange for a part of the product. The serf gives up, the proletarian receives. The serf has an assured existence, the proletarian has not. The serf is outside competition, the proletarian is in it. The serf frees himself either by running away to the town and there becoming a handicraftsman or by giving his landlord money instead of labour and products, thereby becoming a free tenant; or by driving his feudal lord away and himself becoming a proprietor, in short, by entering in one way or another into the owning class and into competition. The proletarian frees himself by abolishing competition, private property and all class differences.

full text

In shorter term's the definition used in the Communist DIR of this forum is :

“Communism is the ideology and movement advocating for a socio-economic system characterised by the common ownership of the means of production. All Communists therefore ultimately agree that private property, the division of society into classes and the existence of states as a mechanism of class rule are not the “natural” condition of mankind. "

Yes lets have the hypocrite explain it. Hilarious.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Of course it is predictable that droughts sometimes happen. I knew this when I was a child.

Just because you can't predict when something will happen doesn't excuse you for being unprepared when it does.



Upper limit is over 3 million, but whether or not it was 'merely' hundreds of thousands makes zero difference to the point that it was caused by the government's incompetence.



Their government



My point is that it was the fault of the government that they mismanaged the economy to such an extent that many people died of starvation.

You don't think that poor governance contributed significantly to the death toll?



I guarantee that we will not see hundreds of thousands of Brits starving to death.

Ok, so you may get run over by a bus, are you prepared?

Nope caused by the drought. Agravated by the government

Nope, America, history is quite sure of this. If took much aggression and violence over many years to turn a bunch of peaceful Buddhists into murdering nutcases.

And without the drought?

Of course it contributed, but it most certainly was not the cause
 

Prometheus85

Active Member
What do you want?

Communism definition

"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
synonyms: collectivism, state ownership, socialism, radical socialism;
Sovietism, Bolshevism, Marxism,neo-Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism
"the social and economic principles of communism"

Socialism definition

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism; More

  • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
    synonyms: leftism, Fabianism, syndicalism, consumer socialism, utopian socialism, welfarism;
    communism, Bolshevism;
    radicalism, militancy;
    progressivism, social democracy;
    laborism;
    Marxism, Leninism,Marxism–Leninism, neo-Marxism,Trotskyism, Maoism
  • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism."
See how similar they are?

Does that explain it?

The definition is contradicting what your saying it means
 

Prometheus85

Active Member
Socilalism is a step below communism. Thats the difference, is degree.

Again you keep using the two words interchangeably while either ignoring or just completely ignorant of the differences between communism and socialism.

Marx In his critique of capitalism pointed out that ruthless competition and heartless pursuit of money are immoral as they create exploitation of the masses by the very few privileged ones. As an alternative, they envisioned a classless society, without hierarchy, without currency, without personal property, where people would work in harmony, resolve their problems in friendly discussions, produce enough goods and services, and where each would contribute according to his abilities and receive according to his needs. This community-centered form of social order is called communism.


socialists can be pro- or anti-market. They may consider the ultimate goal to be revolution and the abolition of social classes, or they may seek more pragmatic outcomes: universal healthcare, for example, or a universal pension scheme. Social Security is a socialist policy that has been adopted in the unabashedly capitalist United States (as are the eight-hour working day, free public education and arguably universal suffrage). Socialists may run for election, forming coalitions with non-socialist parties, as they do in Europe, or they may govern as authoritarians, as the Chavista regime does in Venezuela.
 
Ok, so you may get run over by a bus, are you prepared?

Totally the same thing as a government not having a plan to feed its people.

Nope caused by the drought. Agravated by the government

The poor weather exacerbated the governments inability to feed its people properly. The only reason they hadn't been starving before was due to aid from the USSR and later China. There was still a food deficit, malnutrition, etc. beforehand.

Almost all communist countries underwent significant reform except NK as their dear leader preferred seeing people starve to death rather than relinquish his grip on power.

Nope, America, history is quite sure of this. If took much aggression and violence over many years to turn a bunch of peaceful Buddhists into murdering nutcases.

Yes it's big bad America's fault that the peaceful, altruistic USSR invaded North Korea.

And without the drought?
Of course it contributed, but it most certainly was not the cause

They couldn't feed their people before the drought.

Despite your apologetics, the famine was 100% avoidable. The cause of starvation was government policy and mismanagement.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Totally the same thing as a government not having a plan to feed its people.



The poor weather exacerbated the governments inability to feed its people properly. The only reason they hadn't been starving before was due to aid from the USSR and later China. There was still a food deficit, malnutrition, etc. beforehand.

Almost all communist countries underwent significant reform except NK as their dear leader preferred seeing people starve to death rather than relinquish his grip on power.



Yes it's big bad America's fault that the peaceful, altruistic USSR invaded North Korea.



They couldn't feed their people before the drought.

Despite your apologetics, the famine was 100% avoidable. The cause of starvation was government policy and mismanagement.


kind of like cock ups after kateina?

Yes some counties get aid... So?

Oh, that was the reason? Wow you should write a history book

Its big bad americas fault for bombing a country back to the stone age
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
Not quote true despite what trump tweets. In the mid 90s NK suffered 4 years of drought in which many died of starvation. Drought is hardly the regimes fault no matter how oppressive they are

Maybe drought isn't the government's fault but why is Kim Jong-un a BIG man while the people he is governing are starving? He is obviously eating well. What about his people. I don't see a lot of concern from him.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
NK did not develop towards Communist society, it was stunted very early on by Kim Il Sung and the rejection of Marxism for Juche philosophy.

Ok, not Communist, dictator supposedly helping the people through Juche philosophy but not actually doing so.
 
Again you keep using the two words interchangeably while either ignoring or just completely ignorant of the differences between communism and socialism.

Marx In his critique of capitalism pointed out that ruthless competition and heartless pursuit of money are immoral as they create exploitation of the masses by the very few privileged ones. As an alternative, they envisioned a classless society, without hierarchy, without currency, without personal property, where people would work in harmony, resolve their problems in friendly discussions, produce enough goods and services, and where each would contribute according to his abilities and receive according to his needs. This community-centered form of social order is called communism.


socialists can be pro- or anti-market. They may consider the ultimate goal to be revolution and the abolition of social classes, or they may seek more pragmatic outcomes: universal healthcare, for example, or a universal pension scheme. Social Security is a socialist policy that has been adopted in the unabashedly capitalist United States (as are the eight-hour working day, free public education and arguably universal suffrage). Socialists may run for election, forming coalitions with non-socialist parties, as they do in Europe, or they may govern as authoritarians, as the Chavista regime does in Venezuela.

Sure, ill go with that.

Like i said, socialism is a step BELOW communism. Its a matter of DEGREE.

I like keeping my words streaght and simple, to the point.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Maybe drought isn't the government's fault but why is Kim Jong-un a BIG man while the people he is governing are starving? He is obviously eating well. What about his people. I don't see a lot of concern from him.

I agree. Jong un is somewhat overweight while an estimated 41% of North Korean are malnourished. For a country to be in the state it is in the 21st century is a terrible indictment

But then again, the richest country in the world, america, is the most obese nation while it boasts more than a 13% poverty rate. I dont see trump doing much to solve that problem.
 
Top