For the record: To defend communism is a sign of moral depravity. It is the same as defending the right to rape, loot, torture, and murder. It is not a matter of a difference of opinion, any more than the earth revolving around the sun is. Or that Hitler gased and machined gun mothers as they breast feed their babes, or that China practices forced abortions. The truth is never an insult: Is this a board for adults and thinkers, or a place for snowflakes not to melt, or a sanctuary for the deprave to spew their venom. To support communism is to announce to the world you are one depraved soul. That's a truth, not an insult., and if you can't face your own soul, then don't insult the murdered by defending the indefensible to try and cleanse your soul. Defending and supporting communism is not a moral act, it is damn near the most evil act, intellectually, being committed today. The real insult would be to not defend the truth of the Pol Pots killing fields. Or do 3-5 million slaughtered not matter anymore? Or as in Venezuela, do eating animals from a zoo to stay alive not offend anyone? Or does the 60+ million butchered by Mao not count as human victims of a butchering monster, just because he wrote a little red book. May any who defend any form of collectivism, but especially communism and socialism, pay a self-inflected metaphysical price of pain for their sin, or they can repent and start the long road to redemption and become once again a moral being. The evidence of communism's evil is as obvious as Ted Bundy's depravity, evil, and the bodies of his victims. So obvious that only a child could be excused for being ignorant of it I have yet found one child on this board. Ignorance is not a sin, willingly evading the obvious is. Ayn Rand: " One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?"--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/moral_judgment.html Ayn Rand: “Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world. “That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage."--http://www.workthesystem.com/getting-it/howard-roarks-courtroom-speech/ And today, that vulture is Communism, and the Capitalists, the individual, and America, are today's Prometheus. The Light of Truth The Price that is Paid:
Why Do Communist Supporters Ignore the Butchered Lives of 100 Million Plus What is that resides in the souls of those who close their eyes to the brutality of communism on human beings. Is that they didn't hear of the screams in the dead of the night in Castro's Cuba, Stalin's Gulags, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pots empting of the cities. It has all been documented. You can see the horror right now in the communist states still in existence, such as Venezuela. What does it take to support that which makes rivers of blood, lives of misery, screams of horror. I say its the moral depravity of the wanting of the unearned no matter who gets hurt. After all, everyone agrees the sacrifice of an individual for the greater good is man's greatest moral attribute. Listen to Yaron Brook, and see if you agree: http://www.theblaze.com/podcasts/ya...seem-to-care-how-many-people-communism-kills/
I agree that it is highly objectionable, but "moral depravity"? That may not be the most accurate way to describe the failure that communist efforts have been. You don't mean "communism". You mean "communist policies, efforts, methods, and practices found in history." Communism has never existed. But you don't want to know this or you would be curious enough to investigate exactly what I mean. Apparently not in all cases. You, for example, have been resistant. What, exactly, is "communism", and be sure to indicate your source for your definition. This, alone, would prove your error to you. What does all this have to do with today or with this forum or the views of anyone here? Or are you just practicing venting pent-up anxieties? Really? Then why have you been evading and willingly resisting and refusing my offer to discuss socialism with civility and honesty? The truth I would point out is obvious to anyone who pauses and thinks about it just a bit. Ayn Rand was a hypocritical whore. She made millions from publishing her "values" that she promptly abandoned when it became convenient to do so. http://www.snopes.com/ayn-rand-social-security/
Admirers honor 'Che' Guevara 50 years after his death The depraved once again rise and bow to alter of mass butcher, begging to kiss his torturing ass. You better hope there is a God to forgive you. I won't. "The Truth About Che Guevara" "He helped free Cubans from the repressive Batista regime, only to enslave them in a totalitarian police state worst than the last. He was Fidel Castro’s chief executioner, a mass-murderer who in theory could have commanded any number of Latin American death squads, from Peru’s Shining Path on the political left to Guatemala’s White Hand on the right."--http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/truth-about-che-guevara Chavez and Maduro's murdering hero, the man who vomited on the soul of man, Che Guevara. Damn, are you b*****ds who admire this psychopath some very sick puppies--and Bernie Sanders and his teeny bopper post mod squad's hero. Its all almost too much to bear. Who will be ANTIFA's Che Guevara? Who will become the butcher that will make Americans afraid to say, "I admire George Washington and Thomas Jefferson"? And how soon will it happen?
Oh you shouldn't forget but its like it never went away in America. I heard the C word all the time when i was growing up but its a word i hear less and less as i get older.
WRONG. The early Christians were not communists. In Acts 2, Jews were in Jerusalem for Pentecost. When the Holy Spirit came, many of these Jews became Christians and stayed in Jerusalem beyond what they had planned (for Pentecost), they exhausted the money and food they had on hand, and other Christians shared with them. There was no state involvement, no demand that people share, no enforcement of sharing, it was purely voluntary. That's not communism. And it was not the norm, it happened at that moment in Jerusalem, and that was all. It did not become the standard. Communism violates almost every prescription in the New Testament. It makes no sense to even entertain the idea that the early church practiced communism, "progressivism", or socialism.
There has been a heavy propaganda campaign against it since before the Cold War and ever since. That is probably where you heard it when you were growing up. It sure wasn't debated freely and honestly. Any "debate" on the subject was dominated by talking points from propaganda. That was the content. Even today there is a virtual taboo against discussing it, and that illicits only more talking points and ready-made disinformation. Heck, even you wrote "the C word" rather than just typing "communism". We're not supposed to even mention it. And you didn't. Everybody over age 15 in the U.S. is very certain they know what communism is. They are very confident. They can't be told anything because they have the straight and honest propaganda on it. Yet only about 2 or 3% of the public actually know what it is. It's necessary to study sources that are not anti-communist long enough and deeply enough that the certainty that it's all lies gives way to honest realization of the truth. And the truth is not so radical after all.
Morality is such a subjective matter, I will say this social-collectivism is a an unnatural condition for the human animal, as well as an illegitimate social, and political structure. Aside from this their is the fact that such social-structures, are more like dogmatic religious beliefs, then political and social ideals. As such it becomes impossible to separate the state religion (social-collectivism) from the primary function and purpose of government. For the communist party's first and really only concern is for the communist party, and their can be no truth our ideal, which is our can be acceptable, that is not communistic. Also one should remember that when one lives under his father's roof one lives by his father's rules. Likewise is it with social-collectiveism when all property is held in common (political doublespeak for "state ownership of property") you live under the states roof, thus you live under the states rules.
And Ayn Rand was pretty immoral. She continually ranted and raved against "communist social security and medicare" yet when she retired she quietly applied for and received both. Look it up.
Well to start with by * "Morality is a subjective matter" I mean different people, groups, and cultures have different measures, and subjective valuations, of moral values. I didn't believe I had to provide "proof" of something so self evident. Likewise, if collectivism is not a unnatural condition for mankind, then why *are humans so selfish, and "greedy". *why is their class struggle *why dont these utopian hive conditions exist naturally, if it's part of our nature. *why is it that the Iron curtain Berlin wall Travel, and trade restrictions in Venezuela Just to name a few of many examples, show how the border controls in these states, are concerned with keeping people in the workers paradise, because aside from China which is way more economically fascist, they dont have many illegal immigrants trying to enter paradise now do they. America needs a wall to try to keep people out, thus it is self evident that the overwhelming majority of people find the conditions of classical liberalism, and Republicanism, more agreeable, then having some oppressive bureaucracy, and welfare state declare to you what is in your best interest, our what is good for the individual. I could go on but this would be unproductive. I'll say this in like manner that the animal in a zoo, lives by all account in a perfect utopian paradise, hes safe, well feed, given health care, as well as any other needs he may have, nevertheless we all know deep down it's not right to keep them in zoos. Why? Likewise despite the fact, all their needs are meet for them, and thrust their is no struggle for existence a zoo anaimal never the less has a shorter life expectancy. Why? Because it is an unnatural condition of existence we are subjecting these animals to, and we know it because of this little thing called Empathy. In order to empathize one must first relates to the one who suffers, this tells me that we dont thank it is right to impose collectiveism on to the other members of the order of creation. Because its cruel and unnatural. You know what this can go on endlessly so why dont you enlighten me as what I have said that is untrue and why, and we can go on from their. P.s. I do apologize for my lack of grammar, and such I am a true dyslexic, and as such the phonics, and other parts of the brain used to tie reading, writing, and language together do not make the usual connections. Spelling and grammar is two things I admit I have much difficulty in. I am a reader however and do recognize how annoying mistakes in grammar and spelling can be
As to your "PS" I think you do quite well. It's good to see thinking people for a change. Collectives are most often very shallow in their thoughts.
OK. Because humans are conflicted by nature. They want to live in societies for the social benefits they offer, but they want to be "special" and stand above the rest all too often. They want to be better than the rest. This crates the desire for social advancements and technological improvements, but it has been distorted into a willingness to harm and disadvantage others for personal gain, and all economic systems, - slave society, feudal society, and capitalist society, -so far, have been dedicated to this purpose and goal due to class structure. I think you mean "why is there class struggle?" If you meant "their", your sentence is not complete. The answer to "there", is that one class struggles to be superior and benefit from the other class which the economic system creates. And the "other class" that is exploited by the first, sees what is happening and resists. They also resist the harm and disadvantages that are flowing down to them. For example, we don't like obstructions to healthcare and so we examine it to find out why that is what's happening. Then when we see the problem, we struggle to end it by demanding national healthcare to ensure it is available equally to all of us. But those who are profiting from the situation struggle against the resistance to preserve their profiting. They did, as ancient tribal societies, until a few dreamed up ways to exploit the situation. My apologies for altering your post but I had to in order to understand it and make sure we agree to what you were asking. If I have it wrong, please post this section again. You seem to be under the false impression that Germany. China, and Venezuela are "socialist" maybe(?) And so "if they're so great, why aren't people emigrating to those countries?" Is that accurate? If so, we need to stop this pointless series of posts and talk about what socialism is. If that is not what you mean, then we need to zero-in on just what you do mean. It is not true that the majority of people lean to the right today. It is also untrue that most people want a wall, etc. But I am unsure what you are saying. I'm having to make assumptions and I don't like that. Because that is not their natural existence dictated by their genetics. Guess. But "thrust their" what? Absolutely incorrect in every part of that statement. I think that although you never mentioned the word "socialism" once, that is what you mean (or maybe "communism") we need to clarify exactly what it is. Ah! Thanks. That explains plenty. I wish we could sit together and talk. It would probably be so much easier. You don't happen to live in Oregon, do you? Yeah, let's talk about socialism/communism as you may prefer. You show plenty of common confusion and misunderstanding about them.
If we confine ourselves to absolutes, then if communism is immoral than it follows to reason that any other system other than a libertarian one would also be immoral. To some degree or another.
Yes, very true this is a good place to begin, by socialism, communism, Marxism, and whatever new name they may call themselves today, our in the future, they are nevertheless all names for the same social phenomenon, which has plagued humanity and hindered his further development thousands of years before the 1848 revolutions. "In democracies changes are chiefly due to the wanton licence of demagogues. This takes two forms. Sometimes they attack the rich individually, by bringing false accusations, and thus force them to combine... sometimes they attack as a class, by stirring up the people against them" " the demagogues, anxious to have an excuse for confiscating the property of the notables" "Sometimes the demagogues, seeking to win popular favour, drive the notables to combine by the injuries they inflict upon them-by requiring [them to undertake extensive] public services, they force them to breakup their estsites or cripple their revenues. Sometimes they bring false accusations in the courts, in order to be in a position to confiscate the property of wealthier citizens" Aristotle, politics 350B.C. This is just from one little section of this marvelous work of social science, and it along with countless other works throw out history testifies and gives account of this same social phenomenon, that people today call socialism, communism, Marxism, ect. (but like a rose is a rose, no matter by what name, so also is Societal cancer, Societal cancer despite semantics) For this social phenomenon is all ways a sign of degeneration, sickness, and decline. Likewise the end results for society and humanity are always the same, as can be seen in every case where a host people succumb to this sickness, which is to say when social-collectiveism no matter what one may call it, succeeds in achieving its objectives. Then with out fail appears all those evils that the critics(rational thanking people) of social-collectiveism try in vain to warn people about, just to be informed that this are that expression of this "belief system" doesn't represent "true", our "real" _______(fill in what ever word one would like to call this Neo-feudalistic, statist religion) Alas, It ends up that for over 2300 years now, and countless attempts at this Utopian fairytale, It can just never get its brake. Will we ever see True Socialism? I say we have indeed seen its truth for over 2300 years now it is those who allow themselves to be carried away with sentimental romanticism who dont seem to understand what true socialism is, our what it has to offer Humanity. Some internalize and identify with thier subjective interpretation, of a romanticized version (propaganda) of an ideology, our philosophy; which blinds them to the reality of humanity's nature, in particular those aspects of which are in general seen as less then socially, morally, and in some instances legally acceptable. this is why so called "true" socialism, has not, and will not be seen anywhere but upon paper and the imagination of man. Also, you do realize that, by at least the first international, the socialist movements begin their trade mark practice of Social engineering. For it it is well know Marx and Engels where social scientists, and not political leaders, our figures. You know A+B=C our conditionA+conditionB=social phenomenonC, in common terms we use the maxims "history repeats itself", "their is nothing new under the sun", and the most accurate "those who learn not from history are doomed to repeat it". Yes because as Adolf Hitler, Niccolò Machiavelli, Aristotle, and many more show us with unsettling clarity those who DO learn from history, and understand the causations of various psychology, and social phenomenon, know in turn how to bring about, our prevent C, throw the manipulation of A and B. If you do not believe me on this point it just tells me you have not read much socialist, communist, and especially Marxists literature, and philosophy. For it's not a secret, our even something they try to conceal, just look at the 2018-2019 party platform of the democratic socialist party on their own web site. They promote "Radical Democracy" their opening statement, do you know what this is? A tactic, and strategy that creates dissent and fractures in a society to destroy it, dont believe me just read. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. I have nothen more I can say on this, it would be in vain anyway, sadly lies are more powerful then reason our truth just read Mein Kamp written in 1924 and look at the social engineering, propaganda, and control mechanisms Hitler theories, and then look at the German Reich from 1933-1945 they worked perfectly. Guess what as Hitler admits himself the foundation for many of these control-mechanisms he learnt for the Marxists, and internationalist. I wouldn't worry about it how ever they are only doing this to liberate people from their exploiters, and if you can trust government who can you trust
*“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.” “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.” Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the Communist Party *Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the communist party *But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social. And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class. The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting... Karl Marx, Manifesto of the communist party *The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. Karl Marx, The Manifesto of the communist party *But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class. Karl Marx, manifesto of the communist party *he immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat. Karl Marx, manifesto of the communist party *And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying. Karl Marx, Manifesto of the communist party What about Karl Marx, does he know what a communist is? Because according to him, communism wishes to abolish (formally put an end to a system, practice, or institution. From Latin word 'abolere' meaning to destroy) eternal truths, such as Freedom Justice All religion All morality The family Property jurisprudence(dew process) Individually Independents Free association So is the act of destroying morality, an act of immorality, what about subjecting some one to slavery? More interesting is the fact that a group of people who always are preaching from a morality point of view, and a concern for justice, should wish to destroy these very things. I guess that must mean they are empty meaningless worlds, only chosen do to their psychological effect on their intended demographic; but would end that make it propaganda, and thus deception.
Huh? - "thousands of years before the 1848 revolutions"? Thousands? Apparently you know something that I don't know. But aside from that let me clear up the socialism, communism, Marxism uncertainties. Marxism is mainly a critique of capitalism. Marx actually said very little about socialism and communism other than to extrapolate from how economies have each led to the inevitability of the next economic form and thereby identify the next step after capitalism as being socialism. Then he theorized that the next and final stage, which would be communism, would naturally occur without any forceful imposition. It would just happen because people would see no reason for it to be avoided. Socialism is working class ownership and control. Any state control would not be socialism because it doesn't change the relationship of worker to management and ownership. Communism is a theory coming many years after socialism has stabilized and persists. But it's only a theory and cannot be imposed on a nation since classlessness cannot be imposed. Now, the question of how socialists and communists differ and why they split: There have always been those who want a violent revolution to seize state power, and those who want a peaceful, gradual transition to socialism. But when Marxists began to see and worry about the USSR sliding into state capitalism, the disagreement sharpened and that led to a split. Those wanting a peaceful and gradual transition broke away and called themselves "socialists" to distinguish themselves from those favoring a violent takeover who then took on the name "communists". When people talk of "communism" today, they mean (often unconsciously) to one of two things. Either they are referring to communist Marxist principles, doctrine, and strategies, or they are referring to communist society, or, as they often do, they are mindlessly mixing and confusing the two. Usually they are confusing the two. And when they talk of "socialism" they most often are referring to the capitalist definition of socialism which also characterizes the condition "temporarily" imposed on society by communists.... state control. I have made it my business to always be clear on these things and to present my arguments accordingly. How little things change. Then I assume you are discussing this with me to "show me the light" and persuade me to advocate capitalism. First of all I want to know how you think all that applies to the transition from slave societies to feudal ones, and then from feudal societies to capitalism. Please make that connection for me. How does it apply? But I see no truth in the notion that "it along with countless other works throw out(sic) history testifies and gives account of this same social phenomenon, that people today call socialism, communism, Marxism, ect.(sic) (but like a rose is a rose, no matter by what name, so also is Societal cancer, Societal cancer despite semantics)" or that "this social phenomenon is all ways(sic) a sign of degeneration, sickness, and decline". Do you really believe that is true of capitalism? I doubt it. Again, how were societies fooled into expecting a utopia that never happened in the process of transition to capitalism? Again, how does that relate to the transition to feudalism, and then later from feudalism to capitalism? I eliminated the remainder of your post as it seemed to be your own person conclusions which I believe to be flawed, but see no point in arguing them. The major issue that seems to stand out in it all, though, is that you have not grasped social scientists' analysis of how each economic system contained within itself the seeds of the drive to solve that system's problems by creating the next economic system, and that this is why slave societies led specifically to feudalism, and why feudalism led specifically to capitalism, and why capitalism will lead specifically to socialism. A different sequence was and is impossible.
Most of what Marx wrote has been spun and twisted by capitalist ideologues. I'm not interested in untangling all their garbage but I will address one thing that I think you will see and agree with me on. Marx referred often to socialism ("dictatorship of the proletariat") as "lower communism" and to actual communist society (after the "withering away" of the classes and the state) as "higher communism". So in your quote here he was clearly referring to "lower communism" (socialism) since the abolition of things were involved. Hold it. Let's be honest. He actually said "bourgeois freedom" which he defined as "under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying." That is not inclusive of all undifferentiated freedoms! To tell the truth we must qualify the terms as he did. You didn't. [/QUOTE] Same thing. I think it is obvious that morality will never be abolished! So also obviously he meant bourgeois morality. Same for family. Jurisprudence means "the science or philosophy of law", not due process. So I think an objective and unbiased reader would understand that he meant bourgeois jurisprudence, since he was discussing bourgeois values and considerations. The same goes for all of your list. And the "property" Marx always discussed was not "personal property" but private property meaning businesses, business capital, profits, and the like. This puts to rest your final arguments against these things. And remember that if the collective working class is not in control, it is not socialism. And if it is socialism, then it would be people like you and me who would be approving any legislation and official "rules". And I, for one, would certainly NOT approve of any complete, blanket, unqualified abolishment of freedom, justice, all religion, all morality, the family, property, jurisprudence, individually, independence, or free association as you objected. In fact I've never heard of a socialist calling for any of those.
Hold it. Let's be honest. He actually said "bourgeois freedom" which he defined as "under the presentbourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying." That is notinclusive of all undifferentiated freedoms! To tell the truth we must qualify the terms as he did. You didn't. (That's some funny **** right their) Ok, it is clear that if modern bourgeois society, was establish from feudal society, then modern bourgeois society=Western European/ American society, which is to say western civilization. Therefore this bourgeois freedom is that western conception of freedom. (what political, and social structure came after feudal society? Republicanism, and liberalism in the forms of both liberal, and representative democracy's. What was the value system of this bourgeois society (western liberal democracys and Republics) The rule of law, the belief of the equality of man, civil Rights, dew process, self sovereignty, independence, individualism, freedom of speech, and religion, ect. Thus the modern worldview and value system. the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. (This modern representative state, liberal democracy's, and Republics, that is the bourgeoisie society he speaks of thus it is our American, and western European society and conception of freedom, independence, and individuality) feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class. (Social and political constitution, once again this is that bourgeois society mentioned above.(western civilization and value structures) Constitutional law and rights, is a fundamental principle and part of the western liberal democracy's, and Republics which came about after feudal society. In them is the modern representative state is establish, along with civil rights, and legal protections, which is to say dew process. modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property. (Law, morality, and religion he calls these bourgeois prejudices; because these are the mechanism upon which he destroyed feudal society, to become master himself. Bourgeois-society in turn uses these same mechanisms to reinforce the bourgeois power structure, and his classes intrest, thus subjecting "society at large to their conditions of appropriation", that is their law, morality, and religion. (Western liberal democracy's, and Republics, civil rights, and legal protections) "The proletarians cannot become master of the productive forces of society. except by abolishing( formally put an end to, a system, practice, or institution) their own previous mode of appropriation." What was the proletarians "previous mode of appropriation"? As the exploited working class, in bourgeois society(western civilization, those places which are commonly called the free world) thus, the proletarians can not come to rule over society and remake it in their image unless they do away with the mechanisms upon which, bourgeois-society's mode of appropriation stands, which is western liberal democracy's, and republics, and their social, and cultural value system. "They have nothing of their own, to secure and fortify" this bourgeois-society, and it law, morality, and religion(western liberal and democratic republics, and their value system) was used to "secure and fortify" their power structure, their for freedom, individualism, morality, and independence, and self determination, these are products of bourgeois oppression, and exploitation they do not belong to the proletarians. "their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property." That is destroy bourgeois-society(western civilization), and its value system. Individually, liberty, freedom of speech/religion, morality, self determination, ect. All of which is that security for, and insurance of, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY, that fundamental principle upon which, feudal society was done away with, and private property rights where founded upon, as well as all of western values for the individual. For during the time of divine right, the monarch was lord of all, and his words and will was the sovereign authority, and law, of the land, Being as the king was chosen by God and all. Their four to disobey him was to disobey the will and divine appointment of God himself, and theirfor difficulty to justify. The classical liberals, and philosophers of those days, however did challenge this claimed divine authority of the king, on many different grounds; but the two most popular ones where with the Bible, and by the empirical observation of the natural order of creation. "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their posses- sions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.
All of which is that security for, and insurance of, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY Individual property= the origins of property according to the classical liberal philosophers, upon who's work the feudal society was found to be illegitimate, and id the foundation of bourgeois-society. Two treatises of Government By John Lock Book:2 chapter 5 of property .27 though the Earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all Men, yet every man has property in his own person. This no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes our of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby make it his property. It being removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men. For this labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others. This is why the individual is to be abolished he is the origin of Individual Property, seeing as he belongs to himself and his labor is that which creates Private property. This is that bourgeois property it talks of But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class. The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.
"And remember that if the collective working class is not in control, it is not socialism." Did you make this up your self, because if anyone has a clame to the term socialism, it would be the first individual who began to use it in relation to social-collectiveism, and that would be Utopian socialism, which did not teach worker control like you clame, but totally the opposite for it is mainly opposed to the "selfishness and egoism of Individualism", and proposed a society where all classes BUSINESSMEN, AND WORKER a like worked together for the greater good and utility of society, and the shared ownership of resources. Now I am sure however you are going to inform me about how I and world history, and the publication dates on books our incorrect, and I just can't wait to hear why. Henri Saint-Simon(1760-1825), the French socialist theorist, and founder of what is called Utopian socialism, it is he that is given the credit for coining the term socialism.