The promotion of communism without a balanced counter argument does society no favours or service.
I agree, and I look forward to reading your counter arguments to the teachings of communism promoters, particularly
this guy.
A rational and balanced opinion about any subject can only be made once all aspects of the topic have been exposed for examination.
Be careful, are you sure that you have exposed
all aspects of the topic for examination? Because if you haven't then by your own criteria a rational and balanced opinion cannot be made.
Now there are quite a few reasons as to why this political ideology can appeal to people. Especially those within the lower income brackets. It promises getting some access to the greater common economic pie, free stuff as in being able to enjoy some of the things that others in the movies seem to take for granted. Access to services that only the rich seem to be able to afford. Promises of social justes and a more caring social system. Guaranteed employment and housing
Communism is all about getting 'free stuff'?
But this is the bait that draws you into embracing the ideology and becoming a part of the struggle. What you perceive as gain in common is never yours to control but you become the property of the state instead. In the end the only thing owned is you!
Bummer. I love getting free stuff, but not if I have to share it with others!
So the obvious question remains, “Why is this ideology being pushed and promoted if it fails to deliver?”
Fails to deliver what? Free stuff?
Well the answer to that question is quite simple. It does deliver! And in spades, but not for those that are being encouraged to embrace it. In a communist state look closer at the eventual leadership at the top, the ones that get to make all the decisions for the rest. They are the ones that basically own the whole lot, including the law and just recycle what is needed to keep the peasant, or working class masses happy, while they get to play with the real riches and authority with all the trappings of real wealth and real power.
Aha, I see what you are getting at now. It's just another scam, like capitalism!
Think of all the tin pot third world dictators that led all the liberation movements after the end of WW2. The leaders are all as rich as hell while their respective countries are impoverished messes.
Communist dictators? I'm thinking, but having a hard time coming up with any. Who were they again?
Remember this, in any war it is not the soldier that fought in the conflict that gets to ride around in the fancy car and can afford to eat at the best restaurants. That privilege belonged to the politicians that motivated the soldiers to fight for them, while they slept in real beds at night and probably never had to defend themselves with a rifle though the entire conflict.
Like this guy?
Vladimir Lenin
Refused legal representation or bail, Lenin denied all charges against him but remained imprisoned for a year before sentencing... In February 1897, Lenin was sentenced without trial to three years' exile in eastern Siberia... In November 1917, Lenin and his wife took a two-room flat within the Smolny Institute... In January 1918, he survived an assassination attempt in Petrograd... He survived a second assassination attempt, in Moscow in August 1918; he was shot following a public speech and injured badly.
Or this guy?
Fidel Castro
Accompanied by 19 comrades, Castro set out for Gran Piedra in the rugged Sierra Maestra mountains several kilometres to the north, where they could establish a guerrilla base... Over the following days, the rebels were rounded up; some were executed and others – including Castro – transported to a prison north of Santiago... The trial embarrassed the army by revealing that they had tortured suspects, after which they tried unsuccessfully to prevent Castro from testifying any further, claiming he was too ill.
Or this guy?
Mao Zedong
Paid a low wage, Mao lived in a cramped room with seven other Hunanese students, but believed that Beijing's beauty offered "vivid and living compensation". At the university, Mao was snubbed by other students due to his rural Hunanese accent and lowly position... Mao visited Tianjin, Jinan, and Qufu, before moving to Shanghai, where he worked as a laundryman and met Chen Duxiu, noting that Chen's adoption of Marxism "deeply impressed me at what was probably a critical period in my life"... Mao's army made it to Changsha, but could not take it; by September 15, he accepted defeat and with 1000 survivors marched east to the Jinggang Mountains of Jiangxi... In the mountainous area they were unable to grow enough crops to feed everyone, leading to food shortages throughout the winter... In November, he suffered emotional trauma after his wife and sister were captured and beheaded by KMT general He Jian... Meanwhile, Mao recovered from tuberculosis.
So it is with the promotion of a new ideology. The grunts get sent out to deliver and take the beatings while the promoters get to promote their own selves with their speeches and dubious promises.
So now the next obvious question is; what mechanism is communism really supposed to achieve?
Again the answer is simple, It has been designed for controlled destruction, the overthrow of sovereign states and the gaining of power on the backs of the poorer masses of a society that always makes up the majority in any nation.
I'm confused. Were Lenin, Castro and Mao the 'grunts', or was 'promotion of a new ideology' their master plan for getting rich off the backs of the poor?
It has been observed that when just about everyone has become poor then there no longer remains any rich to envy. Experience has shown that that which is owned by everybody, is looked after by nobody! It’s method of operation goes like this.
It has been my observation that being rich is not necessarily a position to be envied. But I seem to be in the minority, as everyone around me is enthralled by the idea of getting rich at other peoples' expense. It's the American Dream, to become rich enough that you can look down on those poorer than you and denigrate them for their lack of monetary skill (or luck).
There are certain basic immutable laws of nature, like the law of gravity. One of those laws is that if you keep stealing from someone or something you will eventually destroy the victim. If you steal from your own house, you will eventually destroy your own house. It makes no difference how you dress it up or justify it, the result will be the same. This is a basic law of nature and why theft and fraud are against the laws of all the countries of this world as well.
Interesting. So those corporations who keep breaking the law and stealing from me will eventually destroy me? And they use their vast wealth to get politicians in their pockets to change the law and make it 'not stealing'? Well there's only one answer to that - Revolution!
A look at its history will help clarify the real motivations behind this ideology. The international bankers did make a bid for world domination...
It was the international bankers...
The bankers got their revenge.
Aha! Just as I suspected - those nefarious
Jews bankers were behind it the whole time! All they had to do was secretly finance a few useful idiots who thought peasants deserved a better life, and their fortunes were assured! But how did they manage to find countries that were ripe for such a fiendish plan? The answer of course is that they didn't just 'find' them. This cabal of bankers have been working for thousands of years, molding economies and societies into a state where the gap between rich and poor was big enough to make communism look attractive. And what mechanism did they use to achieve this? Why it was
capitalism, of course!
Look at any country with a populace so impoverished that communism seemed the only way out, and you will find a country that was riddled with capitalism. It has failed (or will fail) wherever it was tried.
