>Marx said killing is okay!
>Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin kill a few million people
>WELL NOT WHEN THEY'RE THE ONES DOING THE KILLING!!!!!!!
yet, time and time again, communism cannot be obtained in any measurable means without capitalism to accompany the brutal, cruel needs of human nature.All people that kill another are murderers and equal in their intent and reasoning, yup, totally got me there, bro. What will I do now?
All people that kill another are murderers and equal in their intent and reasoning, yup, totally got me there, bro. What will I do now?
How is this NOT a case of special pleading again?>ITS OKAY WHEN MARX DOES IT
>BUT NOT WHEN MAO DOES!
>But its okay to kill the rich!Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). A person who commits murder is called a murderer.[1]
Did you or did you not just say that killing people because they don't want to give up their property when you come to claim it is justified?So you're putting words in my mouth now without even trying to quote me, is that the green text?
Seriously bro.
Land reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe first large-scale killings under Mao took place during land reform and the counterrevolutionary campaign.
Won't you look at that, Dumar. The mass killing started in China during the.....land reform period where all the land was usurped and redistributed from the property owners, to the farmers and working poor.Land reform (also agrarian reform, though that can have a broader meaning) involves the changing of laws, regulations or customs regarding land ownership.[1]
I'm completely laughing my ass off right now by the way.In 1950, Mao passed the Agrarian Reform Law. Party officials went around China to help with land reforms. Animals, machinery and land were given to the peasants. Landlords had reason to fear for their safety.
Immediately after the Communist Party came to power, landlords were rounded up to account for what they had done. The Communist Party encouraged the peasants to take over the land and to try "evil landowners". Many former landlords were guilty of many crimes against peasants on their former land and it is thought that as many as 1 million ex-landlords were executed between 1949 and 1953. Those not executed were sent to special camps to be re-educated. By 1951, the land revolution had ended. The largest section of society - peasants - had been rewarded for their support of the Communists while a potentially large threat - the landlords - had been eradicated.
dumar should expand on this.Becausetheywill fight to the bitter end to ensure their current way of life remains intact. If they want to join the revolution, they're certainly welcome. But they cannot keep their existing social relations that are being discarded. Industry and capitalism no longer supported lordship. Freedom and communism will no longer support capital and plutocrats.
Contradicting himself again. He's already said they will usurp Khalid's father's farm, and if he resists, they'll have the right to kill him, because the days of property owners are over.For the bazillionth time,redistribution is not communism. Do you understand? Do I have to bold, glitter it up for you to read my words more carefully and not misquote. Taking land away from landlords, killing the landlords, and giving the land to the peasants or the State accomplishes nothing in terms of a communistic society. It's just distributing the property in a different form. It's simply exchanging old landlords for new landlords.
Communism is not about redistributing from the rich to give to the poor or to the State. If you take property away from someone and put it in someone else's hands, whether it's a poor peasant or the State under Mao, you've haven't done anything except kill lots of people and replace them with different people.
Originally Posted by hodj View Post
Like killing anyone who desires to keep their farm. Because they refused to evolve with the rest of society.
What if the share holders don't want to lose the value of their investments when you come to seize their corporations?
Will killing them because they dissent be okay by Marx?
Andyup, now is where we're getting into the difference between Marx and almost every other philosopher or academic in modern history. He wasn't an academic like Chomsky or Harvey, a philosopher like Kant, or an economist like Keynes. He was all these, the last real Enlightenment polymath, but who was first and foremost a revolutionary who wanted to lift the human condition of all. So to him,action was everything, much more important than words.
redistribution is not communism.