The Communist Manifest *Youtube Video*

luis9343

Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
48
The Communist Manifest *Youtube Video* Collectivism vs. Individualism

Made this video for class which summarizes Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

CMCover.jpg



View on Youtube



...
 
Last edited:
Well, all claims in this video are correct, including this one -
The final goal of the Comunist is a proletariat revolution and the abolishion of private property and class and agonism.

But what is your opinion, luis9343?
 
Well, all claims in this video are correct, including this one -
The final goal of the Comunist is a proletariat revolution and the abolishion of private property and class and agonism.

But what is your opinion, luis9343?

well, i do agree with certain points marx makes, though I want to make it clear that i am no Marxist or communist etc. The feeling i get with marxism or communism though is that a lot of people dont really understand it and or simply think its evil or bad etc. I think the russian revolution and stalin really made it look bad to the world, though what was going on in russia then was not what marx wanted. So i think everyone should give it a chance and see that most of these arguments etc in the communist manifesto are simply the peoples struggle against gov/corporatism etc. The thing is though, that im still trying to make up my mind of what is a better system, or form of government, socialism vs. libertarianism, ron pauls ideas. I want to know what you guys think is better, and why. Is small gov, private property etc, better than socialism/communism/marxism. Libertarianism VS. Socialism.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the answer, Luis9343.

Luis9343, would you agree with me if I'd say that the real goal of Marx was not to improve lives of working class people but to destroy the structure of society and to overthrow the old ruling class (aristocracy) which is a part of a nation and replace them with new members of ruling class which is foreign to society?


The term ruling class refers to the social class of a given society that decides upon and sets that society's political policy.
The ruling class is a particular sector of the upper class that adheres to quite specific circumstances: it has both the most material wealth and the most widespread influence over all the other classes, and it chooses to actively exercise that power to shape the direction of a locality, a country, and/or the world. Most of the upper class does not fit the fundamentals of this description, but some do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruling_class
 
Thank you for the answer, Luis9343.

Luis9343, would you agree with me if I'd say that the real goal of Marx was not to improve lives of working class people but to destroy the structure of society and to overthrow the old ruling class (aristocracy) which is a part of a nation and replace them with new members of ruling class which is foreign to society?


The term ruling class refers to the social class of a given society that decides upon and sets that society's political policy.
The ruling class is a particular sector of the upper class that adheres to quite specific circumstances: it has both the most material wealth and the most widespread influence over all the other classes, and it chooses to actively exercise that power to shape the direction of a locality, a country, and/or the world. Most of the upper class does not fit the fundamentals of this description, but some do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruling_class

yes, i kinda agree with you

what you think about my question

what you guys think is better, and why. Small gov, private property etc VS. socialism/communism/marxism. ;)
 

just finished watching them, and i though they were great. I must say, i pretty much agreed with all that was said, therefore, i believe at least at this point that the libertarian principles are better than socialist/collective ones. The thing is though, in certain situations, it seems as if socialism, or a strong government is necessary, or at least as part of a process to move on to libertarianism. For ex. a very poor country, dominated by some dictator, you need a revolution to take it over, a strong group and that group must assume power and enforce at first laws, etc. Then i guess from there it can begin to become libertarian oriented. no? what do you guys think?????

and again thanks a lot for posting those videos, they were great.
 
This country was founded on the principals of Individualism.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Over many years it functioned quite well. It was in the early 1900s that a group of socialists infiltrated the government and have turned it into the twisted government we have today.
This is happening a little at a time over the last hundred years..
“Soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions”.

“Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call `Social Insurance.’ Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”

Colonal Mandell House, the founder of the CFR, from a meeting he had with Woodrow Wilson in 1910.
There is some good information here,
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=left_right&refpage=issues
What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces? Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:

1. Rights are derived from the state;
2. The group is more important than the individual;
3. Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
4. Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
5. Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.

These are the core principles held by collectivists in their quest to remold mankind to their hearts desire. The main disagreement among them is over how those principles should be applied. They do not realize that it's not the application of those principles, but the principles themselves that cause injustice, scarcity, and freedom's demise. History has already shown this truth in the form of despotism under Nazism (the so-called Right) and Communism (the so-called Left). It is sad that intelligent people with knowledge of this history still cling to the myth that they are opposites when it is so clear they are merely different manifestations of the same ideology.
 
Anti-Federalism

The thing is though, that im still trying to make up my mind of what is a better system, or form of government, socialism vs. libertarianism, ron pauls ideas. I want to know what you guys think is better, and why. Is small gov, private property etc, better than socialism/communism/marxism. Libertarianism VS. Socialism.

The answer is not a left or right. The answer is anti-federalism. In anti-federalism libertarianism, socialism, communism, and everything inbetween can coexist. Anti-federalism means there is no one big country government. Instead, power is given back to the small communities and states. So communism, libertarianism and everything else can occur at the logal level (according to the people's(of that general area) preference). A couple states can be communist while other communities and states can be libertarian. Anti-federalism is the system that our founding fathers made, but is now corrupted. This is what the Ron Paul Revolution is all about: Anti-Federalism.


And the constitution justifies Anti Federalism: (10th amendment) All powers not designated in the constitution belongs to the states.



Here is Anti-federalism summed up in under 20 minutes.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WtzrqvPfnE0

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iqsppmBsTdE&feature=related
 
Last edited:
Ok, here goes...

This arose as a quotation by John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."


This is what happens when you give the state too much power.

1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1929 The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938 Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 to 7 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and 12 million Christians who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

=====================

The idea that communism or socialism "takes on corporations", is flawed. Socialism and communism is, or at least, leads to corporatism, wipes out the middle class and makes the poor poorer. When a centralised government manages the economy it bails out large corporations, banks etc when they get into trouble or gives them preferential treatment with government contracts etc. This wipes out competition.
An example off the top of my head is merk drug company who murdered 100,000 american citizens when they knew their viox was faulty. There were lawsuits which knocked down the company. The gov's response was to do favours for them by rescuing them. They started pushing the HPV vaccine for children and pushed it through the school system as mandatory. This is socialism where the gov looks after the economy and corporations. Of course people cry but that is not what socialism is meant to be, and I cry on paper and theory or in practice?
Socialist labour came to power in britain taking power from the conservatives. Now there are 4 times more millionaires and billionaires than ever before, the middle class is getting wiped out. The corporations and bureaucracies are doing fantastically well however under the more socialist system in the UK.
China as we all know got took over by the communist party who we all know now completely manage the country and it is now totalitarian. Communism promised equality and justice but people got tyranny. Now out of communism has emerged a corporate system with the country and quality of life poor. In china now you have the corporate elite realing in a fortune functioning as corporate capitalism for a tiny percent of the country and communism for the remaining 99.9% of the population.
Limited central government takes gov out of managing the economy and ruling people's lives. This gives true competition against corporations, freedom of the press and so on... If a corporation behaves badly it is punished and may very well go out of business because it is punished by the consumer who stops buying and investing etc. Free market capitalism therefore the antidote for corporatism.
People sadly confuse socialism/communism capitalism (which equals corporate capitalism) with free market capitalism and then start begging for more government interference to fix the problems caused by government. Nothing ever changes though.
Things like the EU, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and so on although they increase trade, they only increase trade for corporations and not for small businesses etc so the poor and middle class continue to get poorer.
Also private central banks play a major role in taking from the poor and middle class because under a socialist or communist central government they can just get these banks to print money out of thin air which devalues the currency because pumping extra money out of thin air to fund wars, corporations or bureaucracies etc. Inflation then devalues the money owned by small businesses, savings of the poor and middle class and so on. However big bureaucracies and government favoured corporations again do fantastically well because they get to use the extra money that has been printed out of thin air first before the effects of inflation set it. Also socialism and communism is very prone for reasons explained above to fraud, corruption of the money supply with the people as slaves.
Some people argue that some of the principles of libertarian socialism or libertarian left is not prone or as prone to the problems explained above. I prefer libertarian right though. I could be swayed on some of the principles of libertarian left but for now I think Ron Paul has the answers and his message and platform is the best that I have heard from a politician.
I hope this post helps explain what I meant and believe.

thanks for the great reply, ill also check out the other vids posted
 
Back
Top