Topic: Communism vs Free World= Kamala vs Trump. - page 4. (Read 1067 times)

There something I don't understand, though.
If Kamala Harris is such a Deranged socialist/communist as people from the Republican party claims her to be, how come she has secured millions of dollars in donations from corporations like Google? Those corporations and big businesses are all in for capitalism and free market, would not they be commiting a big mistake by donating and helping a communist to get elected into the White House? - You need to remember that the control of those big companies is in the hands of the heads of the companies, not the little people. It's like the Politburo in Russia. Those leaders are not the little people.

They like Cabala because she is their puppet that they can turn any way they want. She listens to them, and does what they want. That's how she gets money from them.

They have made money from the policies of the Dem Deep State. One of the ways is the war in Ukraine. They might deplore killing, but they don't have to face it (being in the US), and the money is good... through their media that they get paid by when they support things like the war.
Because, as far as I know, communism within the United States would explicitly mean the end of those corporations as we know it, as they would be likely seized by the state or absorbed by the state. - But the big corporate leaders would be the new Communist leaders in America through their puppets in the formal government.
There are also important business people who are well know democrats... so how come those who are rich and own a high percentage of their fortune in shares of companies in Wall street agree to support an alledged communist?

I don't get it.

Careful now comrade. You don't want to get deported to Alaska for mangling the name of the Supreme Leader (or maybe you do, in which case I apologize).

But you can't take any of Cabala's promises and show that they DON'T lead to Communism.

You can take some of Trump's promises and say this leads to communism just as easily.

False. To know so much about communist theory you don't understand the basics, what you don't have in communist societies is ownership of the means of production, but people had private possessions like cars, clothes and houses.

Then there are societies such as North Korea that restrict property more, and others that restrict it less, but in all of them there is private property, otherwise it would not make sense to have a currency circulating to buy goods and services.

Any sane person who looks not only at North Korea but also at what happened in Venezuela, for example, realizes that the only way to implement communism is not overnight. It can also be implemented little by little, step by step, saying that you are not a communist but that it is unfair that the rich earn so much and that the best thing is for the state to take away what they earn so that we are all equal, and the story ends with everyone being equally poor, those who survive.

Kamala is not going to implement a communism overnight, she is going to go little by little. What's more, the latest from the Democratic party is wanting to abolish the first amendment. Have you heard Kerry and Walz talk about it? A project that seems to have been dreamed up by a high ranking Stalinist. Ban what can't be said from a state body, controlled by the Democrats, of course.

You're not going to like to hear this, but communism is not about "equal outcomes".   It's about equal distribution or access/availability of goods and services through a market and economy fully controlled by the state.

In a communist society, people don't own property.

It's ironic, but Marx would agree with a lot of the arguments being made by right wingers who include 'communism' and 'equality of outcomes' in their rhetoric (except for what communism is implied to be):

When Kamala starts suggesting ideas that are distinct to communism, like that we'd be better off without free markets, or getting rid of the concept of private property, then it would make sense to call her a communist.

Thank you, but (1) I don't think I'm "lefty", you seem to be over-extrapolating too much from me not supporting a grifter who happens to be a Republican; and (2) none of what you're complaining about is communism.

Throwing "communism" around like this defeats whatever point you might be trying to make. Any sane person looks at this and looks at North Korea and knows this is a bullshit argument.

Dedicated to my lefty friends suchmoon, paxmao and the rest.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.