Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Anything goes (almost).

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby ronnewmexico » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:47 pm

I'm sorry no....this is(no offense) pap for the masses to digest and act upon..."What the American Colonies did, in declaring their independence from England, was to establish that the right to govern came directly up from the people who are governed."

Americans initially recognized as voters only those recognized male landowners of a certain race.
That by no stretch of the imagination comprised anything close to the majority of peoples in america at that time.

Capitalism works socialism works even communism works depending upon circumstance.
And they do not work depending upon circumstance.
Anarchy works in particular remote circumstances of rare variety. As does totalitarianism and facism.

Demonizing one or the other is demonizing water for being wet. They all have good and bad aspects to them.
Rule of law is the proper arbitrator of capitalism in its present form.
Naked capitalism does not work in the present day and time as naked forms of any of those mentioned do not work.
The best governments require a composite of factors of each and every form.
In some respects and venues total control by government is necessary, as in regulating certain monopolistic situations.
AS in america certain socialisms such as social security are the best.
In some areas naked capitalism is the best as in perhaps the competition between dell HP and Apple produced the best communication devices by virtue of naked raw competition.

In certain farmiing situations communal cooperative means are the best, the midwest US speaks to that a bit.
In pure form each works but only very rarely.
To demonize one or the other is not beneficial to communicatiion and is the purview of propogandists.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:03 am

ronnewmexico wrote:I'm sorry no....this is(no offense) pap for the masses to digest and act upon..."What the American Colonies did, in declaring their independence from England, was to establish that the right to govern came directly up from the people who are governed."

Americans initially recognized as voters only those recognized male landowners of a certain race.
That by no stretch of the imagination comprised anything close to the majority of peoples in america at that time.



Yes, what you say is true. The people in charge of things were slave owners.
I didn't mean to imply that a completely equal system was established.
I was pointing out from whom that authority to govern was derived.

They still thought they had a right to own slaves, they just said that the right didn't come from heaven. Of course, to a slave it doesn't matter who gave your master permission...you are still a slave. But it established a premise on which, 90 years later, slavery could be rightfully abolished.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby ronnewmexico » Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:09 am

It was not just slaves...native americans indians at the time were the majority by population in most of the areas of america at the time.
The rapid loss of natives populations had no yet occured on a grand scale as in later years,

This was a rule of the ruling elite of one country as opposed to the ruling elite of another.
Democracy was never democratic in america.
Hence the senate and its nonelected status. Another aspect but one of many. Natives in new mexico for instance did not receive the ability to vote in local elections until 1948....I could go on and on.

The idea of democracy is pap for the most part in america, it is after all a republic not a democracy.
That is no accident.
Thinking their way of consideration as opposed to the truth of america furthers their corporate interest.
Even now it is not a democratic institution the american government.
ONe voice of opposition by one senator in the senate and no legisltation may extend...it is called fillibuster and neither party wants to change it....and all legislation must pass the senate.

So one thinks one is under democratic rule. ONe is not this is a republic with democratic aspect.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby ronnewmexico » Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:23 am

I don't want to extend this conversation off into a spin zone but here are the filibuster rules as evidenced by wikipedia....

"In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[36] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to end debate.[36] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the filibuster could be changed by majority vote, using the so-called nuclear option, also sometimes called the constitutional option by proponents. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time. In recent years the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve "

a simple majority of senators could change it at any time but neither party wants to. If this is democratic rule by majority...why not?...you have to ask yourself that question.
The answer...this is no democracy by majority influcence. A republic it is by majority influence.
That it is not is pap for the masses.

A new mexican democratic senator submitted legislation to change the rule of fillibuster in the senate(Udall), which is held by the democratics by majority.
Needless to say it failed miserably.
They do not want a democracy they want a hybrid that is controllable by interest, corporate interest and influence. Both sides. They want only to be made to do things.
....I know the game.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby LastLegend » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:23 am

Thanks you all for your excellent feedback.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Sönam » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:56 am

edearl wrote:The US and many democratic countries focus on individual rights; I think China frequently ignores individual rights and focuses on doing what is best for the country as a whole--that is after the fat cats get their cut.


Do not assimilate China to communism, it's a non sense, China is a capitalist oriented country with a totalitarian gov. ... therefore considere China as a capitalist country, that's what it is !
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Thug4lyfe » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:42 am

China was a communist country.

Even though though of course high ranking party members always had more previlage than others. The wealth was distributed very evenly until the even the early 90's. I've experienced this myself, food were cheap and many people have secure income (although low, but everyone's got low incomes, but things were cheap) and secure job because almost all are state owned. People were alot simpler and school were very tough on bullying and insisted on mutual respect.

But because Communists tried to destroy Confucism and Buddhism in China, generations of people missed out on these important ethical teachings thats kept the Chinese culture and empire alive for all those years. Hence why there are so many social problems in China with people have no morality, corruption and greed.

The true culprit is communism, a teaching that encourages people to hate the rich and blame exterior sources for their problems. Since it also claims religion is a opiate for the people, it can only rely on material satisfaction as a source of happiness for the people. Not to mention very black and white strict rules you have to follow (closer to Christianity than anything).

China is only relative stable now and still helping many other countries because old culture values created by Confuscism and Buddhism is so deeply rooted within the nation it's still having alot of influence. Not to mention many cultivated part of the Chinese goverment sees the problem is desperately trying to bring the old ways back. But it's very difficult when the country is entangled materialism and lack of religion and spirituality.

Communism is not a good thing, anything that encourages to people to blame others for their problems will cause more evil than good.

Karl Marxi isn't a spiritual seeker, he is a economical/political analyst.
Image
User avatar
Thug4lyfe
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:40 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Sönam » Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:32 am

Food_Eatah wrote:
The true culprit is communism, a teaching that encourages people to hate the rich and blame exterior sources for their problems. Since it also claims religion is a opiate for the people, it can only rely on material satisfaction as a source of happiness for the people. Not to mention very black and white strict rules you have to follow (closer to Christianity than anything).



This is not true, this is propaganda, never MArx has encouraged to hate the rich, this is a lie ! ...
Also in those capitalists countries, drived by the materialistic market, wether you are born rich or poor will trace all your life ... this is not right, materialistic inheritance should not exist, why should it be, just because that stupid kid is YOUR's ?
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby edearl » Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:07 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:As one of my favorite political commentators has said there are only four words that are ever, ever, ever going to save the world. Only four. And they really can save the world. But the key is to realize who it is that you're speaking these four words to. Are you ready?

"Put down the guns".

I think there are four more. Slash fossil fuel use.
HHDL: "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."
User avatar
edearl
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:11 pm
Location: USA, Texas

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby mint » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:32 pm

Food_Eatah wrote:The true culprit is communism, a teaching that encourages people to hate the rich and blame exterior sources for their problems. Since it also claims religion is a opiate for the people, it can only rely on material satisfaction as a source of happiness for the people. Not to mention very black and white strict rules you have to follow (closer to Christianity than anything).


If any system encourages envy and jealousy, it's capitalism. People aren't occupying Wall Street because they feel that wealth is being evenly distributed. The American Dream itself is about keeping up with the Joneses, not about equinimity.

And communism is not rooted in blame. It's the interdependence of free market trade that is rooted in blame because when someone doesn't trade, blame gets shifted around.
User avatar
mint
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:45 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:44 pm

Sönam wrote:
edearl wrote:The US and many democratic countries focus on individual rights; I think China frequently ignores individual rights and focuses on doing what is best for the country as a whole--that is after the fat cats get their cut.


Do not assimilate China to communism, it's a non sense, China is a capitalist oriented country with a totalitarian gov. ... therefore considere China as a capitalist country, that's what it is !


Oh for cryin out loud Sonam. What on earth would you do if you didn't have your pet Great Satan to hate?
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:50 pm

Sönam wrote:... why should it be, just because that stupid kid is YOUR's ?


:rolling:

And there we have it folks. Family unit = man-rape of the yoni-verse, ashrams good. Cause you know there have never been any problems with ashrams, right, like gurus driving around in Rolls Royces and such.

Sonam: utopia = u-topos = no-place.
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Sönam » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:31 pm

Funny how I can easily return it to you ... as for great satan it seems a concept you're born with, my friend !

But it's ok, the world is complitely falling apart, european countries are swiftly been bought by your newmarket game partner, China, and even in US citizen are occupying capitalists institutions all over the country ... but you still view the world like in Mc Carthy's time.

:thumbsup:
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1992
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Oct 28, 2011 7:36 pm

Sönam wrote:... the world is complitely falling apart ...


Cheer up old chap.
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Thug4lyfe » Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:13 pm

Sönam wrote:wether you are born rich or poor will trace all your life ... this is not right, materialistic inheritance should not exist, why should it be, just because that stupid kid is YOUR's ?

Our birth are determined by our actions. Hence everything in this life is TOTALLY fair. Everything we get and everything we don't get comes from our actions in this life and previous lives. No one is born to wealth because of "luck" or "fate". However, if you behave like a spoilt and greedy "capitalist brat" you will soon lose it all. why back in China during every dynasty change, including the communist revolution, many of those "bad rich people" gets killed.

See, by attaching to communism your attaching to jealousy and anger at the rich, but the teaching of cause and effect, dependent origination teaches us to understand the causes, so we don't commit these hateful thoughts.

Also another reason why we should work hard, be more charitable and be compassionate, so we don't end in a situation where we become another hateful mass thats always wants to start a revolution.
Image
User avatar
Thug4lyfe
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 11:40 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby ronnewmexico » Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:19 pm

No offense but that is a bit simplistic....by that take Idi Amin would never have retired in peace died in his sleep in Saudi Arabia after having killed thousands of innocents and eaten the still beating hearts of his enemies,some totally innocent peoples.

Karma is not fair. Its basis is on the basis of a false concept a individual me, which is why it is never fair and why we must seek enlightenment to get out from under its yoke and help others out. Most beneficial life or least karma always comes around to bite you in the tale and leads to suffering.

That aside I find it funny how the most ardent of antisocialists and anticommunists the americans have as representative their most notriously proamerican thing the national football league a socialistic perhaps communistic entity .

Years ago the winning team invariably was by perportion the NT Giants as NY had the largest market and could then generate its own revenue and get the best players.They bought a whole team in Pennsylvania once dismantled it and put the players on their roster this is how comparitively rich they were.
So the league needed a means to sell a more equal product to the american people so the NFL could go national.
So they introduced backed by the giants, revenue sharing. All teams, under the rule of the league pooled their collective incomes in most fields, so that greenbay a little city could compete with Chicago and NYC very larger revenue producing places by virtue of population and commercial base.

The league now controls not only equal revenue but salary of players pensions and all sorts of things, sizes types of stadiums, what city may join, what city may not, who may be a owner and who may not, negotiates collectively television rights, master long term planning, and on and on. Every aspect with a few solitary exceptions(such as box seats profit) are collectively mananged.
So we have collective ownership, a pooling of production and revenue distribution on a equal basis...this all done for the collective good of the overall the league itself, so it could go national and thusly eventually produce more revenue for all the owners, not just NYC. Even NYC eventually benefitted.
This occured in 1963 or there abouts around the height of anticommunist fevor. Yes the owners agreed to it, but after agreement there were no additional votes for years and years and they were forced to obey or forced out of the league. The AFL had to agree to the same terms in the early 70's to be accepeted as part of the NFL.
The individual owners had given up their rights to individual profiting based on the more pressing need for the accomplishment of a greater good(a more competitive product)..this accomplished by income redistribution and equalization.

Socialim...and if you replace the league with the term central government...you have communism. Prhaps called democratic socialism but socialsim.

comical as few americans know their most obvious institution is a socialist one.

Karl marx's definition of socialism varies from others there are very many qualifiers poiitical economic and others that can be abscribed to socialism and communism.
Last edited by ronnewmexico on Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:29 pm

Haha funny about the NFL you're quite right.

Re: karma it's not fair, not unfair, it just is. Like a hot stove will burn me if I touch it or a rock will fall if I drop it. If karma was a person it would either be fair or unfair.
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby ronnewmexico » Fri Oct 28, 2011 10:35 pm

It just is only in the absence of a self concept..till then quite unfair for all involved.

That we may find discrimination a aspect of awareness only and as such a form of energy does not mean we may not discriminate in conventional matters....karma sucks. Innocently born children get thrown through windows of cars that crash because their parents are to stupid to put them in car seats and suffer spinal injuries as result that render them parapalegics that only function on respirators for the rest of their lives...three year olds..I know of one.......her parents were to stupid to know how to self operate the respirator.

A three year old past life(even if Idi Amin) could ever do anything to require that by my take...but karma is equal but not compassionate

All of us are the least of us...that child..we must escape....you do not see it..no offense but there is much temptation to gloss over how bad this thing of human or animal may be.

SElf and other exist attachment and aversion exist so does karma and so does pain. Neutral in a final sense in a conventional sense....pain always it produces as it forms from a base of unreal the unreal produces the pain...we are not seperate is the solution. Till we realize that... pain is the medium and that is called neutral or not...it is karma. Pain it is always. Neutrally derived pain as a stone dropped from the sky or one thrown from a opponant in a death match...is the same pain equal pain is still pain. Source is not the opponent nor the sky but the pain is the same equal and everywhere. In karma it is found.

It's impetus is the self and other discrimination and aversion,its actuality is pain. Karma is not neutral in effect..it will produce pain when created.
Hence our impetus to become enlightened and stop the generation of karma once and for all.
Enlightened being do not accumulate such a thing. They have no self to hang that hat upon. Having no hook it falls to the floor and is nothing but a thing on the floor. Till then it is pain.,

Those damn NFL communist owners.....ah they hate the rich...wait...they are all rich....as consequence of collective action and result...it is their karma.
I suspect them to then hate themselves...most do it seems. That being the karmic result of attachment and aversion finally considered. Surplus scarcity and self hatred in varying degrees and textures. The most right wing becoming the most left wing in the interest of expediency and efficiency...

Next...communists who are capitalist...soon to a theater near you.
The lines blend you see and are not so clearly defined as those of ideological bent may paint them.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby ronnewmexico » Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:48 pm

Subsequent to the labor contract in July I believe the revenue sharing plan of the NFL was extended for about ten years, and the NBA is considering a similiar plan consequent to their labor issues.

Damn communist basketball owners.
As pinko red as those NFL owners it seems.....and for what...more profits.

Ah the irony of it all....capitalism sacrificed on the alter of...profit taking. :smile:

Lines of distinction blurring it seems.
In the NFL...you can not even spend less on the players salaries then then tell you to...80% of the leagues dictate for players salary must be spent, no matter how much you may need the money nor how good you may be at negotiating....what irony...in this america.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Karl Max, Communism, and Socialism

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:16 am

1)Can someone fill me in the difference between communism and socialism? If possible, please provide examples.

According to Marx (and not Marxists) Socialism was a necessary (and temporary) historical development after the overthrow of Capitalism in order to centralise proletarian (anybody that works for a wage) power in the hands of a state that was sympathetic to the proletarian, until all obstructions by various bourgeois (capital owning and proletarian exploiting) political/economic concerns were overcome and then society would naturally evolve into a state/party-free Communism.

In reality though, when power was centralised, various (unforseen by Marx) structures started to develop (composed of individuals) that wanted to hold onto power (at the expense, yet again of the proletariat) and the whole thing collapsed. And since the bourgeois were never totally erradicated they simply took power again.

Some say it went wrong (in the former USSR) with Stalin, others say that Stalin was a great socialist leader, but I personally believe it all went wrong with Lenin and his consolidation of power after the REAL proletariat overthrew the Monarchy.

China was a slightly different situation, as were the former Eastern Bloc countries, South East Asia (Cambodia comes to mind), Central America, Mexico, Cuba, Namibia, etc... Each was a slightly different take on the, abovementioned, basic story.
2)Did Karl Marx merely describe the stages of change from capitalism to communism?
Yes, that is mainly what he did. The Communist Manifesto was a small and insignificant (in terms of volume and analysis) work outlining a plan for the manipulation of historical circumstances. It was written by Marx together with his friend and financial supporter (a memebr of the bourgeoisie) Weber. The largest portion of Marxs works is an analysis of the fundamental flaws contained within Capitalism economies.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 9986
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

>