You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Stopping communism in the West..
I'm not confusing a commune with the 'political communism' as a system.
Communes (socialism) as a small scale system can work fine - and do work fine. (dunbar's number, kind of thing)
Communism (non local) as a political system- as in the definition of modern day, - always leads to dictatorships.
I'm not trying to re define the words. I'm trying to strip the facade off what we were led to believe, and the actual reality we have been living under for the last few decades..
Well, I think you are trying to give words a new meaning. Example:
It is not communism. It is successful entrepreneurial activity. Capitalism is all about building monopolies:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536
Everything bad is not communism. You need to choose better words.
...you are not understanding the wider picture my friend...
Labels are irrelevant.
(example )
...if apple sold 100% of mobile phones in the US - it would be a monopoly, yes?
If apple was financed by the rothchilds, and rothchilds owned the fed reserve - then apple would become the centralized means of production.
ergo it would be communism, but hidden.
multiply that by 10 corporations, covering food production (monsanto?), big pharma, energy, etc... and you have communism (being a centralized means of production)
Because it isn't labeled 'communism', it doesn't change the reality.
The Rothschild are the financial system.
maybe, but I would counter with 'you need to choose a wider perspective.'
cheers mate.
If apple or rothshild shared all the phones they produced (or money they earned) with everyone else it would become communism. But they are not sharing their income.
Yes labels are irrelevant. And this is one of the reasons I find it unnecessary to use the label communism incorrectly. Especially when it doesn’t describe the situation very well.