Now, on to the substance of our disagreement. Some of the replies here seems to assume that whenever anyone, be it me or Stagyar here, points out a perceived mischaracterization of Marxism and/or communism, this is equivalent to an endorsement of those ideologies. Needless to say, this is not the case. I have stated clearly that I am not defending communism and that I don’t endorse the ban of all personal property. I also never claimed to be an expert on communism, and some of your remarks were enlightening, I agree with some of your criticism of Marx and communism.

These issues however, interesting as they may be, are not related to the claim I tried to make: that Marxism does not support the oppression of free speech, even though the so called communist regimes always have. I never said Marx didn’t support his own idelogy. I was simply trying to make the argument that the originator of an ideology is not responsible for the (supposed) attempted implementations of it if the implementors did not adhere strictly to the original principles by twisting them, subtracting form them, or adding to them in a substantial way, nor are followers of the ideology guilty of the crimes others have commited in the name of it. This goes for all philosophies, political or otherwise, and all religions.

This was a fairly general statement trying to clear out what I thought I had already been clear about. Moving on to the specific, the issue of free speech, I have to again point out that it is not even adressed in the communist manifesto, hence the oppression of this freedom can not be said to be endorsed in that document. The only item that may seem to relate to this at all is the one you pointed out, number 6. However, the centralization of communication is not equivalent to an obliteration of free speech. That fact that the covernment is in charge of some channel of communication does not automatically mean that they censor it. If you are afraid that they will and feel it’s better to protect freedom of oppinion and speech with a free market, you can argue for that all you want, but don’t misrepresent what the manifesto actually says. If the manifesto of any political philosophy does not explicitly say that it endorses the oppression of free speech, you can not make an intellectually honest argument that the followers of that philosophy will inevitably be in favor of such oppression. Furthermore, your statement that:

When they do try to abolish private property that violates peoples free speech rights

is ludicrous. Free speech means freedom to express opinions, not to own property. If you want to call abolition of private property a form of oppression, then fine, argue for that, but to call it an oppression of free speech is beyond ridiculous.

Um, Stagyar, that’s okay with you? I rent and hate it and that’s not even okay with me.

No, it isn’t. Please re-read my comment and note that I expressed no love for Marxism. Although I might support laws imposing a ceiling on individual landholdings, empowering the state to keep these ‘excess’ lands or to redistribute them in a process free from close public scrutiny is a bad idea.

I am generally in agreement with Mr. Macker’s criticisms of communism. It’s his (apparent) worship of unrestrained free markets that I disagree with. To the extent I understand it, communism is merely the very worst sort of monopolistic capitalism. It is also indistinguishable from absolute monarchy except in name. Both of these are very bad things to me.

The list Brian posted is bad enough but, man, this page alone from the link Lehoo provided is enough to say fuck that shit:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/06/09.htm

Seems Brian’s right. And communism wants to replace God with the State or at least that page sure as hell reads like that. Even your children are controlled by the State, not you. To be indoctrinated by it.

How… Very… Cult… Like…

Shove Communism. And, apparently, you’ve no comprehension just how much it would curtail personal freedom.

Let’s just look at that bit about no employees, just companies owned by the workers (i.e., State). Some of us choose to work for other people because it is freer than working for yourself in some respects. Hate your job, you’re free to find a new one. That’s not possible without a mountain of red tape (with the possibility of being denied or shipped some place horrible to work for merely making the request) in the scenario painted. If you are an owner, you don’t just get to walk away.

Please note we are not a pure democracy. A pure democracy would suck! It would be tyranny of the minority by the majority. No minority rights whatsoever. No freedom to dissent. We are a democratic republic and that’s a world of difference.

That’s what makes the US, despite all its flaws, still the best country in the world.

Newsflash, perfection isn’t possible.

You all who want Communism are nuts is what I’m saying. If you truly believe accepting a job is akin to being a slave anyway.

Look, plain and simple, communism would necessarily have to remove far too many freedoms to “work”. The State would tell you when and where to work. The State would raise your children. The State will tell you can’t move out of that apartment that turned out horribly.

The State, in short, in the name of equality, would make slaves of all citizens.

Much as I despise the robber baron mentality growing in this country, it’s still preferrable to everyone being a slave to the State.

You’d have fewer disagreements with people if you would read more carefully.

Notice how you can’t get past item 2 without being in contradiction. How the hell can anyone have income if you can’t have any property? Income is property.
…

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Not to defend Marxism or anything, but 1. proposes to abolish property in land, not all property. He may let you have a little bit of money once in a while.

“To imply that the idea of communism is synonymous with support of the oppression found in such regimes is to be ignorant of what true proponents of the political philosophy actually stand for. That is all.”

Absolute baloney. If Marx isn’t a true proponent of his own political philosophy then no one is.

He outlines quite clearly a monstrous plan of oppression. What do you think item 4 above is about. How can one practice “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.” without oppression.

What that means is that he is going to steal everything from anyone who either disagrees with him, or tries to escape from his madness.

Is that plain enough English for you?

Notice how you can’t get past item 2 without being in contradiction. How the hell can anyone have income if you can’t have any property? Income is property.

Notice how in item 6) he’s confiscated all means of communication. No freedom of the press which means NO FREE SPEECH.

I think it’s you who has problems with comprehension, or it’s you who didn’t read the manifesto. Either one or the other.

I think you are going by what apologists for communism say instead of finding out for yourself.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
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; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Your sentence was ambiguous as to the subject of the pronoun “it”. Learn to use periods instead of commas.

And speaking of ironic: no, being a communist does not entail opposition towards free speech, the concept of communism is not synonymous with the societies that have historically attempted to implement some interpretation of it.

BTW, that’s not simple English. That’s a run on sentence that starts with “And”, or is it starting with “no”. Who the hell knows.

Of course if you chop it as you have that alters it’s meaning and makes it more understandable. Now I understand you meant to have a period, and that therefore “it” refers to communism and not to “opposition towards free speech”.

Yeah I get what you are saying now. Same old tired excuses made by Marxists. No Marxist never set up a communist state. Of course you can’t because the philosophy is contradictory with reality. Marxism is self contradictory too. That doesn’t stop people from trying to set up such states, and of course failing.

Here’s from the communist manifesto: “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. “

When they do try to abolish private property that violates peoples free speech rights. I already explained why. Unless you are going to argue that Marx didn’t actually want to abolish property. Which would be a lie.

All property cannot be owned collectively and voted democratically without someone or some group being in control. Somebody has to implement “the plan”, and when that happens you’ve got a boss. Since you’d have no property you couldn’t act as an individual and would have to ask the representatives of the collective what you could or could not do.

“…my main point is simply that nowhere in these principles of communism, as laid out by Marx and others, can one find the idea that someone else decideds for you what you do and what you can say.”

Look, your democratic system either has to vote on every single decision or it has to appoint representatives. Voting on every single decision isn’t a plan, and is in fact impossible. We cannot collectively vote on what each of us is going to eat for dinner every night, or who far apart we are going to plant seeds, etc.

So there must be representatives who are in charge of the collective property. Once that happens someone else is going to be deciding what you do, and yes what you can say, because if they don’t like your objections to their plan they will withhold resources from you.

It’s amazing how incompetent you are in understanding such basic concepts and yet you are trying to lecture me.

I’ve already read the Communist Manifesto back in college thirty years ago. I suggest that you read Thomas Sowell’s book “Marxism”. Sowell is a former Marxist and he demolishes the philosophy. He understands it a lot better than you do.

It’s funny how Marx spends most of the Manifesto arguing against perfectly reasonable objections to his political hypothesis. Those objections were proven true with every attempt at setting up a Marxist system. Now that’s ironic. Results the exact opposite as Marx argued, and fully in line with his opponents objections. Worse it was obvious he had heard the objections.

the concept of communism is not synonymous with the societies that have historically attempted to implement some interpretation of it. This is not intended as a defense of communism, I will not get into the political debate here, this is a general statement applying equally to any political philosophy.

What this sentence means, for those unable to understand simple english, is not that the historical communist regimes (which I’m reluctant to call them) have not suppressed people freedoms, of course they have! I am strongly opposed to any regime that suppresses people’s freedom of expression, this has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of communism. This is what I actually said, and I was careful to note that this was not a statement that only applies to communism. No political philosophy is responsible for regimes that claim to be based on that philosophy and that have also suppressed people due to principles not found in that original philosophy.

Where are you getting your definition of communism? From Ayn Rand? Have you read the communist manifesto? But why bother to go to the source? I’m sure the opponents of a philosophy can be trusted to supply a fair representation of it… And just because you seem a bit lacking in your ability to understand english: No, this is not an endorsement of communism. I’m simply trying to clarify it’s basic ideas. As Marx envisioned it, it would be a classless society where decisions are made democratically! contrary to what most people seem to believe, communism is not an alternative to democracy, only to capitalism. I know many seem to think capitalism is a synonym for democracy but this is misinformed to say the least.

The main difference between the true communist society and the modern capitalist one, is that property is owned collectively (an idea which I don’t endorse), that the economy is planned and that no one has the freedom to own a company with workers under them, the workers would own the company collectively. I’m getting to much into the details of communism here, but my main point is simply that nowhere in these principles of communism, as laid out by Marx and others, can one find the idea that someone else decideds for you what you do and what you can say. Many people (though not me) call themselves communists because they believe in the form of society that Marx and others proposed, not because they supported Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other repressing regime. To imply that the idea of communism is synonymous with support of the oppression found in such regimes is to be ignorant of what true proponents of the political philosophy actually stand for. That is all.

I’ve protested several times this year and never got arrested.

It must have been for something no-one gave a shit about. Or maybe you stayed within the “designated free speech zones”. Cos otherwise this, or this has been known to happen.

It’s likely evidence of a serial trespasser, not protester, or perhaps worse. Besides the Evan Kane said the arrest record was for violent crime.

Right, cos why bother with things like trials or convictions. Surely, the police cannot be wrong when they arrest you for something. By the way, I’m curious if the “violent crimes” he was arrested for included stuff like “resisting arrest” and “assaulting a police officer”?

@Everyone Else:
Lest there be any confusion due to these bickerings with Brian Macker, my current opinion (based on the information available so far and subject to revision) is that Ms Taylor and the Maoists are considerably more in error.

While the EHSC may have been guilty of general cluelessness and minor attempts at revisionism, Ms Taylor and her cohorts entered private property despite it being clearly indicated to them that they were unwelcome (as per their own histrionic narrative) and then disrupted proceedings. Whether they were explicitly told not to enter, or told to leave, and the extent of the disruption they caused, are all indecipherable in the cacophony of he-said, she-said narratives. But I find the story they’re trying to sell – one in which the EHSC (in cahoots with evil banker Anil Kashyap) baited the poor flower children with an “open to all” invitation and then ambushed them with hidden cops – hard to swallow. That the EHSC were scared enough to move the children elsewhere and to have cops on site, and yet did not ask the Maoists to not enter/leave fails to pass the smell test. Whether their fears were justified or not, is of course a separate issue.