IBDaMann
Well-known member
You had your opportunity to explain. You opted instead for cryptic brevity. Did you want to try again?
Amelia Speaks!
- Thread starter Uncensored2008
- Start date
Monad Portal
Was it me?
haha.
look at retard babble at itself.
libertarians are fascist traitor and suck big pharma cok and hate freedom in practice.
Into the Night
Verified User
Corporations are not a pole. I am not a libertarian. I am a capitalist, not a socialist. Go learn English.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
but you are a dick, that's a metaphor.
Into the Night
Verified User
Sort of. It prevents Congress from passing any law restricting freedom of speech. It does not apply to States or the President, or the Judicial system. It DOES apply to bureaucracies created by Congress that the President manages, however, with the exception of the military, since the President is Commander in Chief.
No, I'm talking about speech, including printed material.
Communism is government ownership of markets. It exists in every nation in the world today, including the United States.
Fascism is government manipulation of markets. It also exists in every nation in the world today, including the United States.
Slavery is ownership of men. It also exists in most nations of the world today, including the United States (illegally).
Capitalism is the voluntary creation of products and services for voluntary sale at the agreed upon price. It also exists in every nation in the world today, including the United States.
Communism, fascism, and slavery are all forms of socialism, based on theft. Communism and fascism are by government. It is typically implemented by dictatorship (a single dictator and his Court, or by oligarchy (dictatorship by committee)...in other words, tyranny. Socialism is theft of wealth, and people don't like their wealth stolen.
Capitalism is the only system that can create wealth. Socialism can't even exist without capitalism nearby to steal from.
Economic systems are not a form of government.
Marx proposed ultimately, communism (where the 'workers' become the government and take everything from the owners); and proposed fascism as a stepping stone on the way to communism.
Marx never declared any particular type of government to implement this, other than a tyrannical model.
This is essentially describing an oligarchy, but it could also be a dictatorship.
True. but this subtopic seems important to him and you, and discussion of Amelia seems to have dissolved into the usual string of insults anyway.
Into the Night
Verified User
Incorrect. The State IS the government here. Communism is government (state) ownership of markets. Marx's view makes the Workers the government to implement this (hence, several such governments calling themselves the 'workers' party (as in NAZI).
Socialism exists wherever there is capitalism nearby to steal from.
AKA the 'workers'.
Into the Night
Verified User
The Constitution is not a 'freedom'. It is a document that defines and declares a government, granting it limited specified power and authority. The Constitution of the United States is no exception.
Go learn English.
Into the Night
Verified User
The acronym as he is using it means 'Child Sexual Abuse Material'. This acronym is also used by the Department of Justice in the federal government. It refers to any material depicting sexual abuse of a child. The law concerning this kind of activity and generating such material, or selling such material, is described in USC Title 18, $2251. Receiving such material is regulated by $2252.
Since this sick industry is not speech, it does not fall under the 1st amendment. The purpose of this law is to prevent child abuse, particularly for profit.
Pornography between consenting adults (over 18) is completely different, but is also regulated where and when these images can appear.
These involve restricting the use of misleading domain names, whether a radio is involved and what service that radio is part of, etc.
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
Random words. No apparent coherency. Go learn English.
Your earlier example was that since classified information is not given to the public, we have no freedom of speech. I was pointing out the error of that claim.
This is not correct.
Government control or ownership of the means of production is SOCIALISM. Communism is the evolutionary stage that follows socialism, according to Marx, where the state fades away and all things are shared among all people with no government or laws. It is a fantasy.
This is not correct.
Fascism is a form of socialism. It is the doctrine that the state is supreme in all things. While private ownership is allowed in a limited sense, the state maintains absolute control of the means of production. Mussolini wrote "Why would the state need to own the means of production when the state already owns the owners?"
Agreed.
Communism does not and has never existed. It never will.
Agreed.
Marx postulated both an economic system - Fabian Socialism - and a governmental system, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
While this is a simple, but accurate definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is not "Communism." Communism occurs when the state fades away.
Never in human history has any dictatorship ever voluntarily surrendered power. The fantasy Marx postulates is absurd.
Not Correct.
Marx writes of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Not correct.
Marx postulated dictatorship under the uneducated peasantry.
That was his objective.
Into the Night
Verified User
You seem to forget that someone WROTE that document. Their freedom of speech is curtailed in the interest of national security.
Redefinition fallacy. Communism is a form of socialism. It is a subset of socialism.
Communism is a form of socialism, including the communism described by Marx. Under Marx's model, the 'workers' become the government, and take property from the owners.
Communism exists in every nation, including the United States (example: the Federal Reserve, which owns the money market in the United States).
Fascism is government manipulation of markets, which you have just generally described. It also exists in every nation, including the United States (examples: the EPA, the CPSC, portions of the FCC, portions of the FAA, portions of the ATF, etc.).
Communism exists in every nation today.
No. It is based on theft of wealth. Generally an oligarchy or dictatorship is required to implement it.
In the United States, these are generally oligarchies of bureaucrats overseeing their portion of government.
It is the GAINING of power is what makes socialism so attractive to governments.
...and replaces it with the dictatorship (or oligarchy) of the workers.
You could look it that way, but farmers understand a hell of a lot more about farming than any city dweller does. I don't consider any farmer 'uneducated'. They just know about different things than city dwellers do.
If anything, I consider the city dweller 'uneducated'. They think they can survive without the farmers.
A city can neither feed nor house nor water nor clothe their inhabitants without continuous supplies from outside...farmers, utility workers, and other 'redneck' and 'uneducated' types.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. Incorrect. Absolutely and totally incorrect.
You have to remember that communism isn't possible. Communism has no government (and no currency, no military, no police, no private ownership, etc.). State ≠ Government
The State is "the people" outside of any government that might exist. Under Marxism, the State refers to the people who are to be freed from oppression, i.e. the proletariat. Under socialism, the State has a central government that centrally plans everything. The transition to communism has the government dissolve, but the State remains in place as is.
Communism is the centralized ownership by the State (the people) of all credit (abolition of all currency). When you ask "How the F could that even work?" ... well, the answer is that it can't, but it sounds good. It resonates with leftist losers.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Socialism, on the other hand, is the government ownership of all markets, subjugated to the central planning by the government.
Close. Marx's view makes the workers the State, who are to OBEY the mandates of the centrally planning socialist government, so that the socialist government can then step down and join the rest of the workers in their labors. When you ask "Why the F would any socialist government in total power ever step down and join workers in their labors?" ... well, the answer is that they never would, hence communism is not possible to attain.
Yes. Cancer can only exist as long as its host is alive.
Into the Night
Verified User
I might point out that fixating on Marx and his brand of socialism is just that...a fixation.
Socialism has existed for most of the history of Man, usually in the form of slavery or communism.
Egypt, Rome, and Greece had slaves.
Each of them also controlled or even owned markets within their societies.
Mussolini first used the word 'fascism', but the concept has been around for ages.
The word 'fascism' itself comes from 'fascia', which means to bundle (as with sticks). Mussolini envisioned markets 'bundled' by government as government manipulates them. As Marx described, this is just a stepping stone on the way to communism.
Socialism has existed for most of the history of Man, usually in the form of slavery or communism.
Egypt, Rome, and Greece had slaves.
Each of them also controlled or even owned markets within their societies.
Mussolini first used the word 'fascism', but the concept has been around for ages.
The word 'fascism' itself comes from 'fascia', which means to bundle (as with sticks). Mussolini envisioned markets 'bundled' by government as government manipulates them. As Marx described, this is just a stepping stone on the way to communism.
Into the Night
Verified User
No military or police? What do you about dissidents?
What do you call the dictatorship or oligarchy that implements communism, which is generally implemented by force?
This forms a paradox. Which is it, dude?
You again are forgetting about dissidents.
You are still locked in this paradox.
Socialism is not necessarily ownership of markets. You are forgetting fascism, where the government merely manipulates markets. Private ownership is still there.
Special pleasing fallacy.
Why would ANY government voluntarily step down?
At least you got this right. Agreed.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I looked it up. I have problems with this law. The legislators who wrote it were boneheads. Our Supreme Court failed us when they did not immediately declare it unconstitutional.
I get it. The law is unconstitutional.
The industry is not speech. The speech, however, is speech.
Congress can regulate any activity. Actions. Behavior. They cannot regulate any expression.
If I'm in my own home, working on GIMP or Photoshop, any manner in which I arrange/configure the pixels on my monitor fall within my inalienable rights. Congress cannot pass any law that somehow makes me a criminal for exercising my inalienable rights. My creation of memes is not an industry; it's my expression. Your use of email is not an industry; it's an expression. CSAM makes eyewitness testimony illegal because it is verbal expression that depicts heinous things done to children. They did not think this through.
Every legislator that had a hand in passing that crap is a fucking moron who needs a rudimentary course in the Constitution.
All expression falls under the Constitution. All of it. There are no carve-outs.
Great. If the purpose is to regulate activity, then activity needs to be regulated, not Constitutionally-protected expression. Congress shall pass no laws that violate inalienable rights.
Stop. You just wandered back into expression. Move it back to behavior and discuss that.
Images are expression. No expression can be illegal. You have no right to not be offended.
Activity ... yes, that can be regulated. You have to stick with that.
Great. This is activity. Restrict the use of X all you want. Don't pretend to restrict expression.
The problem is that if you come along and say that Expression X is just too offensive to be protected by the 1st Amendment, then you have set the precedent for your neighor to insist that Expression Y is just too offensive to be protected by the 1st Amendment as well. Then, the DNC gets to say "anti-COVID misinformation is too misleading to be protected by the 1st Amendment" or "Christianity is just too RACIST and homophobic HATE SPEECH to be protected by the 1st Amendment." Eventually, the entire English language and half the visible spectrum will fall outside Constitutional protection and will be lawfare fodder.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Like I said, when you ask "How can it work?" ... well, the answer is that it can't.
Communism is never implemented. It is socialism until the socialist government steps down. There is no government in communism. This is why you will hear/read hard-core and academic communists refer to themselves as Marxist Anarchists.
Socialism is implemented by force. Those in power never step down. Communism is never achieved.
Yes, it is totally contradictory; it totally denies human nature. There has never been any communism implemented anywhere. It was tried in CHAZ and that totally fizzled within days.
I am not. In communism, the first person to get a gun and say "F-this!" becomes dictator, and his friends become the oligarchy. Are you seeing the problem yet?
Yes, socialism is the complete and utter control of all markets, all commerce, all everything ... forcing all markets and commerce into black markets.
You are forgetting that where private ownership becomes meaningless, a fascist government is happy to allow business "owners" to retain their meaningless title; meanwhile the businesses are comandeered wholesale for the government's purposes. The government tells the business what it is to do, and the "owner" gets to make it happen.
I realize this is a typo, but it is somewhat humorous.
Bingo! We have a winner! Might this explain why communism has never been successfully implemented?
Into the Night
Verified User
I could see your reasoning for declaring $2252 unconstitutional, but not $2251, which is not even about speech.
Thus $2252 and not $2251.
An interesting argument, although $2252 does not mention verbal communication, only the images. However, you are essentially correct that even producing such images as evidence to convict someone of this can be construed as also breaking the same law.
And I understand your position.
Thus, $2251 is constitutional, $2252 is not.
Oddly enough, this same type of argument was what made it possible to use nudity and even soft porn on most media including cable TV, and hard porn on the internet.
Into the Night
Verified User
Communism is a form of socialism.
The contradiction is by you. You are still locked in this paradox.
Okay. Let's look at CHAZ, since you brought up that image. This was to be a democracy. Like most democracies, it quickly dissolved into a brutal oligarchy. Once the murders started happening regularly, CHAZ was finally put to rest by the cops.
I am not. In communism, the first person to get a gun and say "F-this!" becomes dictator, and his friends become the oligarchy. Are you seeing the problem yet?
This includes all forms of socialism: communism, fascism, and slavery.
It starts out small, like the nose of the camel in the tent. Soon, the whole camel is in the tent and you are out in the sandstorm.
The moment you find yourself out in the sandstorm. The government owns the business.
Little by little.
Truly!
Communism of an entire economy has never been successfully implemented. Capitalism exists in every nation, along with it's free market. You can't kill it. It's immortal. Even if the market is driven into a black market, it's still there and still operates through capitalism. No government can truly kill it.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
It's not a fixation when one is merely identifying a Marxist. Knowledge of Marxism is just that, knowledge.
There has never been any mention of any successful implementation of communism in human history outside of Kimba, the White Lion.
Nonetheless, you are spot on regarding socialism. The final sections of the Communist Manifesto are descriptions of the various socialist movements through literature that inspired much of Marx' work, but no communist examples to which to point.
Slavery has existed for as long as humanity has existed.
Yep. We can see that nationalism is a much greater draw than the "proletariat's struggle."
Yep. Marx described the need for government to reign with total control, including over markets, all during the socialism phase. There is no communism until the socialist government steps down and joins the people in their labors. At that point, there is no more government and hence, no government ownership of markets or of anything.
Monad Portal
Was it me?
now states are sworn to uphold the "federal" constitution.
you know this.
quit acting gay, libertarian censor fucktoid.