Communism: The True Story

PrincepAugus

Well-known member
Messages
363
Likes
553
#1
By suggestion of @KorbenDallas, I will create a thread all about communism. Now I have my own ideas to it, however, it will go into politics and economics. Which I have enough on my plate already in my Ancap subreddits. So I won't go into it unless there's an interesting comment on this thread.

But for your pleasure, just post anything you would want to know or say about the true origins and motives of communism here!
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,595
Likes
6,848
#2
Please, let us keep in mind the nature of this forum. Straight up politics we most definitely do not need. i.e. good vs bad.

As far as Communism, or anything else, as they affected the history of mankind through being misrepresented, misused or substituted the true state of things, or something of that nature... always welcome.
 

Apollyon

Well-known member
Messages
145
Likes
649
#3
Communism seeks to ultimately do away with the state. In this event what stands in the way of the mafia is anyones guess.
 

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
164
Likes
453
#4
I'm in between flights right now, but briefly I'll set the stage for how Communism relates to the spirit of this site. Some of you may like the tenant's of socialism and that's fine, I do too. But I don't think it works on this little planet of ours.

My opinion is that it's destined to fail. So what's the purpose then?

It's the greatest history stealing machine ever conceived.

Perhaps someone a bit more versed in Marxism can start by explaining what a Marxist Interpretation of History actually means? Remember how he claims that Capitalism is a progression on a road that ends in total communism. So how can we relate this to the almost certain fact that our ancient and even recent history is being stolen from us?
Post automatically merged:

My flight is delayed so I'll have some fun for a minute! The reason it won't work with Earth is because it's too small. In fact, we're truly in big trouble and it has nothing to do with climate change (although this will be the excuse for action). Overpopulation is going to be a huge problem VERY SOON.

I sure hope the world is truly round because the only solution is the stars. I feel like we need to be urgently working on moon and Mara colonies. We need to figure out how to farm in space. We need to mine asteroids.

If we could tap into the insane potential of the solar system, then MAYBE Marx is right and we can have a truly Star Trek like abundance that allows everyone to win.

But back to reality, why in the seven hells did Marx think that the 19th century was the time? It makes no sense. Mankind was in no position to implement such an ambitious idea! Here we are in the midst of exploiting and raping mother earth to death, the green revolution hasn't happened yet, but NOW Marx thinks we can implement a world wide resource management program that everyone will equally benefit from? I can't even fathom doing this without a supercomputer first of all.

Either communism was designed as a scam or there's some hidden technology in the wings that's waiting for us once we finally do achieve this world wide goal. Perhaps we've seen glimpses of this in the anomalies discussed on this site.
 
Last edited:

WildFire2000

Well-known member
Messages
69
Likes
309
#5
Steam power was more efficient and cleaner than our carbon based fuel system used today. We have all those images and ideas surrounding a possible atmospheric energy/electricity system possibly based on zero-point energy. So, are we looking at a time-frame in history before this purge where it WAS possible for all of that to have worked?

Tangent here, but I'll loop it back in - I was raised in a near-cult like version of Christianity, far more study of the bible and things than the majority of self-proclaimed Christians today bother to read, and quite honestly, if you read Christ's teachings, he preaches socialism and communism to a point. Christ told people to support their neighbors, to not be greedy, to give of yourself until it hurts so that everyone else around you can be built up. If someone asked for your coat, you were to give him your travelling cloak as well. Don't walk 1 mile with someone, walk 2, etc. When asked what the two greatest commandments of the Law were supposed to be, he told them 1) Love the Lord thy God with all their heart, soul, and strength, then said And the second one is the same, Love thy neighbor as much as you love yourself, on these two laws hinge all of the Law and the prophets. There are other things as well, but those are the basics. The reason I bring it up is that there is a hard, hard push due to societal 'indoctrination' in the US that makes even hardcore Christians like the ones I grew up around that are VERY anti-socialism and anti-communism, they're very, very pro-capitalism and pro-US government. I lean towards the pure ideology of helping one another, empathy, sharing and all of that, but I'm considered misguided, because it's SO WRONG, THE US IS THE BEST and all of that. I find it a weird dissonance, personally.
 

humanoidlord

Well-known member
Messages
648
Likes
482
#7
socialism worked in the previous civlization, but it obviously doesn't work in the modern civlization, where entire countries go apeshit over oil
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
637
Likes
1,407
#12
According to the Hegelian dialectic, socialism (ie: communism) was the antithesis to the thesis of laizzez-faire (sp?) capitalism. Neither are the goal. thesis-antithesis-synthesis Basically, create a problem then offer the solution. Guessing the "synthesis" is one world government but who knows what's in the cards?
If we had a global government once before with technological advances in which most people were fed and happy and it fell for whatever reason (hostile takeover?) then maybe those who are erasing our history and globalizing the various nations want some form of what we had but impervious to hostile takeovers leaving themselves in permanent control. Spitballin' here.
 
OP
OP
PrincepAugus

PrincepAugus

Well-known member
Messages
363
Likes
553
#13
Here's an excellent video on the what I think is the true story of communism and why I think it's not the TRUE Jews fault. In fact, it is their tragedy while the real infiltrators are anyone who claims to be "Jews" and any other people who would utilize this control or sellout.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
199
Likes
864
#15
The fundamental idea of Marxism in regards to our history is called "historical materialism".

This is the philosophy on which Marxism, and then Communism and Socialism, were built on.

Marx asserts that all of our history can be explained by workers and capitalists eternally fighting over ressources, and with every fight, things get progressively better.

He said at the beginning, capitalists had everything, and workers had nothing. And in the end, workers will have everything, and there will be no capitalists any longer, which will ultimately result in the utopian paradise of communism.

The problem is that the entire idea of history being only a fight over material resources neglected all higher aspects of human life, like spirituality, empathy, love, altruism, individuality, education, culture - and reduced everything to the most basic aspect. This is why communism had such a devastating effect.

Marx also ignored the authoritarian and destructive power of the state and failed to take into account how history was more a fight between authoritarian leaders and average people than a fight between capitalists and average people.

In fact throughout our entire history it was the capitalists who secured freedom, prosperity and abundance. Only when a couple of people installed a central banking system, with the help of state structures, was money used to enslave people.

Read Igor Shafarevich and his book The Socialist Phenomenon, in which he worked out how Socialism existed throughout ancient and recent history. It is the only book that asks the question of how our entire history relates to Socialism.

The reason capitalists and conservative people are attacked today is because they represent true freedom and individuality, which means they are able to live in small family groups without reliance on the central state. People who don't enjoy this kind of freedom tend to identify with the collectivist state and media conglomerate, which promises to end their miserable individual lifes, merging with the whole into something that no longer allows individual expression.

Historically, as Schafarevich writes, elements of "Socialism" weren't ideological. And most importantly, it wasn't centrally managed, but born out of local customs and the decisions of free people.

When it comes to the socialist elements in the heretic christian groups (Cathars, etc.), it becomes obvious that everything they did was born out of religious and spiritual concepts, which are completely lacking in Marxism. Without those concepts there is no unifying bond. While it can't be denied that those early groups had a certain collectivist attitude to them, it looks like it was a genuine attempt to recreate the original way of life, which did not focus on material aspects as much as the middle ages did. More importantly, it was rooted within a world that was basically decentralized and consisted of small local groups, which allows a high degree of freedom to chose from multiple ways of life. The spiritual foundation also was built upon radical non-violence, in contrast to Marxism. When most of the medieval world was embracing trade and free markets and started to become more and more hedonistic, the heretic groups realized that they need to protect the spiritual knowledge they inherited against the rising power of institutionalized religion.

When Marx wrote out his insanity, the industrial revolution had enslaved many worker people, but he simply asserted that the entire history of humankind was like the industrial revolution. In reality people lived in abundance during the middle ages, and happily shared their surplus with other people, simply because it is human nature to share when you have more then you need.

Marx said capitalism always leads to communism. So if Marx was honest with his ideas, he would have supported pure capitalism. According to his logic, this movement would have made communism appear faster. Instead, he did the opposite, born out of his sick and fractured mind.

With ignoring the pathological aspects of nation states, central banks and central leadership, Marxism destroys everything that is human.

Shafarevich's book The Socialist Phenomenon,[6] which was published in the US by Harper & Row in 1980, analyzed numerous examples of socialism, from ancient times, through various medieval heresies, to a variety of modern thinkers and socialist states. From these examples he claimed that all the basic principles of socialist ideology derive from the urge to suppress individuality. The Socialist Phenomenon consists of three major parts:[7]


  1. Chiliastic Socialism: Identifies socialist ideas amongst the ancient Greeks, especially Plato, and in numerous medieval heretic groups such as the Cathars, Brethren of the Free Spirit, Taborites, Anabaptists, and various religious groups in the English Civil War, and modern writers such as Thomas More, Campanella, and numerous Enlightenment writers in 18th-century France.[8]
  2. State Socialism: Describes the socialism of the Incas, the Jesuit state in Paraguay, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China.[9]
  3. Analysis: Identifies three persistent abolition themes in socialism – the abolition of private property, the abolition of the family, and the abolition of religion (mainly, but not exclusively Christianity)[10]

Shafarevich argued that ancient socialism (such as Mesopotamia and Egypt) was not ideological, as an ideology socialism was a reaction to the emergence of individualism in the Axial Age. He compared Thomas More's (Utopia) and Campanella's (City of the Sun) visions with what is known about the Inca Empire, and concluded that there are striking similarities. He claimed that we become persons through our relationship with God, and argued that socialism is essentially nihilistic, unconsciously motivated by a death instinct. He concluded that we have the choice of either pursuing death or life.
 
Last edited:
Messages
71
Likes
228
#17
Whatever it's alleged to be... Communism, in the 20th century, was nothing short of destructive. It worked as a dialectic in the grand strategy of divide and conquer. It sets up war after war after war.. With the destruction of well over 100 million people.
Let's list the main players.

Stalin: Union striker from Georgia Russia who managed to effectively shut down munition operations while Russia was fighting Japan.
Trotsky : a New Yorker who receives funding from the major bank operators of America. Any form of terrorism is useful as long as the objective is met.
Lenon: a well known trouble maker in Russia as well as Europe, Germany purposely ships him by rail back to Russia as an espionage agreement to weaken Russia during World War I.
Mao: son of a wealthy farmer who used his father's capitalism to attend Peking University in China and Yale University in America. Yes... He attended Yale.. Home to Skull and Bones
Ho Chi Minh: agent provocateur of MI6 and the OSS. He would also help to rescue downed Allied pilots in the Asian theater.

The Bolshevics receive their funding from American Capitalists heavily tied to Zionism. They use whatever means necessary including terrorism to achieve their goals, including the capture of the Royal family. They are resisted by the White army, unfortunately the Reds would prevail. Thousands of churches are burned to the ground and many a nun are raped and many of the clergy are tortured and killed. Synagogues were unharmed and one of the first laws to be passed provided stiff penalties against anti semetism. Many in Europe saw and heard of this destruction, including a Catholic Austrian who would serve in the German army during World War II.

I'll write more later
 
Last edited:

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
199
Likes
864
#18
Well done, dreamtime. I don't think I've ever heard it explained so well. You deconstructed the concept nicely.
Thanks. Recently I saw what the ideology makes to people around me: they become unbearable, as if they want to pull down others into their misery.

Marx and others are basically un-readable and confusing. So for understanding I mainly looked at the wikipedia article in "simple english": Marxism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which takes away the headache causing word salad.
 
Messages
52
Likes
162
#19
As dreamtime said, the world used to be naturally socialist. It's our nature. Greed is a cultural disease that's been inflicted upon us by TPTB. One way that they do this is by conflating socialism and communism, scaring people into a constant scarcity mindset. In socialism, you keep your fair share and give away the rest, but in communism, you share everything. No sane person wants to share everything with everybody.

I saw a post on reddit a while back that I can't seem to find anymore, but it went into the etymology of the word "emperor" and proposed that emperors were actually conduits of socialism in the old world, managing the redistribution and stockpiling of resources for large areas of land that were dubbed "empires". The reason they came to this conclusion was that "emperor" and "imparter" (meaning "one who bestows") have the same etymological origin.

TPTB do a lot of shady stuff with words.
 
Messages
36
Likes
164
#20
The problem with 20th century communism was that people were sold an idea of an utopia that wasn't true. The proletariat thought that everyone will be equal and amongst themselves that is how they felt. It was sold to them as the dictatorship of the proletariat, none above the other, each for a fitting role. However the proletariat did not understand that the people who are running the show only meant to make the proletariat feel equal among themselves.

It was always actually extreme fascism where the state acquired all the wealth and power. Like the Fascist Mussolini said “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”, now for example in the Bolshevik Russia / Soviet Union how was that different?

That kind of a society to work also always needs purifications. The critical thinkers must be quieted down, the educated, the intelligentsia has to come down. It needs a civil war, the purifications will follow in one way or another. If you supported to bring up this system, but are not high enough, know that the higher ups see you rather just as a useful tool and you'll either be with the proletariat or be quieted down.

Brotherhood, equality and liberty and even socialism was given a bad name because of this and socialism extremely so under the national socialists even though a state like that can prosper well and have no need for racial supremacy ideology. I feel like what went on the world was an attack towards those ideologies so at time people could be educated that we tried those things, didn't work. The same could be happening again with the word liberty being painted on black due to the 'liberal' leftist people and their narrowed minds. They're far from what it really represents. If people ever turned their back on those ideas and it could be teached in history so people would rather resent those ideas it would be a shame, as it all would just have been based on a lie. I don't think the megalomaniacs will get through with it, but will rather fade away as people are getting more educated outside of the school system. It is an age of enlightement, we'll be good.

ps. I don't think people will ever be equal unless we become clones. Some people will always be better at something and worse at something else. I support equal opportunities, but a forced equality, a same set of narrow box for all the people so no one just would ever feel bad about himself / herself is against the 'natural' order and I oppose it. I support the idea of helping those in need if you have that capability, but it doesn't have to be stripped off from your backbone against your will, it must not be so, I oppose it. In terms of life, we are all equal, but in terms of what each and everyone can provide to the society we currently live in or similar, no we are not equal, some are more easily replaced, perhaps an utopia of such is possible however, but we never saw those attempted in the 20th century.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top