Biden says U.S. military will defend Taiwan if China invades - Then White House Officials Walk it Back

submitted by [deleted] from nbcnews.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I easily believe the US is involved, but only because of my next point.

Maoists were put into power by jews. It is communism. How they got the idea of communism and how to control the masses all came from jews.

Back to the first point, the US is controlled by israel, so that is why it makes sense.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Maoists were put into power by jews. It is communism. How they got the idea of communism and how to control the masses all came from jews.

Sure, but today's CCP ruled China isn't actually communist at all. The people/state do not own the means of production. Corporations are privately held and the economy isn't planned, its controlled by market forces. This is capitalism, but with a very authoritarian government. It resembles Fascism more than Communism

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Congratulations, you just described actual communism. To quote my dead great uncle before communism was installed into Yugoslavia. Paraphrased: "This is going to be great, we will finally be able to live easily for once" After communism was actually installed : "This is not what they told us"

In communism, the people own nothing, and the authoritarian state run everything as capitalists with free labour. This is literally communism.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

In communism, the people own nothing, and the authoritarian state run everything as capitalists with free labour. This is literally communism.

Oh I don't doubt that's where we are headed, just that the current state of China with private billionaires like Jack Ma does not fit the traditional arrangement implied by Communism. It sounds more like Mussolini's Italy

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The communist manifesto literally explains a new industrial system, production and a workforce that is run by the state. The state literally is supposed to make profit off the people. The state, is of itself, not a thing. The state is made up of people at the top, who communism does not apply to. Understand, that all chinese billionaires are intact owned by the state. All major chinese businesses must have a legal controlling share by the government. At any time the government is also able to confiscate any amount of wealth at any time when these guidelines are not met.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The communist manifesto literally explains a new industrial system, production and a workforce that is run by the state.

Yes

The state is made up of people at the top, who communism does not apply to.

I understand that this is the way it plays out, but it also isn't exactly what Marx had in mind in the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital. Not that I personally would want any sort of centralized control of the economy.

Also, not that I think it would work much better, but much ignored Kropotkin advocated for a very decentralized communism, which opens up a different set of problems

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.

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.

-3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

-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;

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I get what you are saying Anman, and I see the similarities in some ways, but in others it is directly contradictory to the current regimes goals.

the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class

Nope

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie

Definitely not, the bourgeousie are the ones benefitting

[–]Anman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The system takes from the people, and gives to the state. It's literally right there. The goal is to take all personal liberty and property from the working class and give it to the state. When you read the manifesto, it says over and over that the goal is to destroy the class system, so there is only one class. But again, how does someone take from the individual, if they are not above the individual.

The chinese wealthy, are not bourgeoisie, because all of their wealth is controlled by the state. The manifesto leaves a lot of hints as to its time line of goals. The immediate goal is to remove all wealth and property and then distribute it evenly. Then, after that, the state "takes care of the future". Your version of bourgeoisie and the communists version, is merely just the name. The chinese wealthy are bourgeoisie to the working class, but to communists in china, they are the state.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This was not my interpretation of the Communist Manifesto, but maybe it is more insidious than I realized.

it says over and over that the goal is to destroy the class system, so there is only one class. But again, how does someone take from the individual, if they are not above the individual.

The chinese wealthy, are not bourgeoisie, because all of their wealth is controlled by the state.

My understanding was the Marx and Engels were working under the assumption of a democratic state. The State being nothing more than a majority consensus. The wealthy capitalists would have their wealth confiscated by 'the people', the people would run the means of production through democracy, and the goods would be evenly distributed

My objection to even this sort of arrangement is that you haven't solved the problem of Capitalist Alienation at all. Anyone in the minority of this theoretical nation would be operating under the same alienated condition as if the means of production were owned by capitalists, and people are bound to be in the minority on some issues

To me, communism is simply the principle of democracy applied to the economic sphere. The theory anyway, as we know in practice this is not how it ends up working