In light of recent interactions that I've had with some people, I think that it would be in the best interest of both myself and everyone else (more on that later) to clarify who I consider an enemy--and why.

First and foremost, of course, most people--or at least Americans--will answer this question quite firmly: Islamic Fundamentalists. To the surprise of some, I'll agree with that, but probably for different reasons. Islamic Fundamentalists wish to impose a strict medieval code of conduct upon anyone within their own jurisdiction--and beyond, if they can--and as such they are enemies of the common man and woman. A religious dictatorship, as anyone who has studied history even slightly should know by now, is the worst dictatorship of all. Any action can be justified by the consent of a God that cannot truly give consent. And yet, most working-class Americans (and the general "western" working class) have forgotten their historical enemies. Police, soldiers, factory workers, clerks, waiters and waitresses, whatever the job--we've all somehow forgotten who it is that controls our lives, our families and our ability to pursue happiness. I'm speaking, of course, of the Bourgeoisie--but why use that word? Few people know what it really means, and even fewer care to learn.

Instead, I'm going to say that the rich are the enemy--although not all rich people are part of the Bourgeoisie. Most Americans and "Westerners", (an apt term that I'll use for the duration of this post) have forgotten in the past century that our lives are subject to the whims of the rich. We don't have a choice to work for them--we either work for them, or we don't work; which means we don't eat, play or love--or live for very long. A handful of people own the vast majority of all property in the United States, as well as in the rest of the world, and the number of them has gotten smaller over time. Ironically, or maybe not so, what they own and the value of it has increased incredulously. Some people will, undoubtedly, claim that the rich are rich because they worked to be rich--but this is rarely the case. Most of the rich in "the west" are the heirs of families that, historically, have ruled the countries since their conception--and sometimes before that. And on the rare occassion that a poor person rises up the social ladder, his interests change. The rich are concerned with protecting the rich, by whatever means necessary, and this includes keeping the poor.. well, poor, but entertained. In Rome, the rich openly admitted this: provide the population with bread and circuses and they'll happily let themselves be exploited, even to die in wars that seem just. Today, replace bread with a Big Mac and fries and replace the circus with yet another music album, television series or scandal and you have the same situation--without, of course, today's elite rulers admitting it. The rich, over the past thousands of years, have learned to be less open about the power they wield.

One of the biggest farces in the history of humanity is that of the United States Government and the governments that modelled themselves after its democratic ways. This isn't to say that anyone under jurisdiction of the US is part of it, but that this government hides a much more insidious form of rule than it seems. Every major politician for the past two centuries has been in the pocket of the rich. Money, in the states and many other places, counts as votes after it's all said and done. You can vote for anyone you want, but it's the rich who have the final decision. With very little research, you'll be able to find that there isn't a single politician in high offices that isn't worth millions. As such, almost everything a politician does is directly in the interest of the rich, although sometimes those things can benefit the working person as a side effect. Wars are declared by the rich, for the rich; laws are created to keep the rich in power and to keep the workers working for the rich. When we go to work, we aren't working for ourselves; we are working for the profit of someone that already owns half of the world. Soldiers and police, while I'm sure that most of them enter into service to protect their own families, friends and the common man, often die in the service of the rich--to keep them rich and make them richer. Soldiers, by and large, are victims of a system that doesn't care about the welfare of the common man or woman, but pretends to do so.

What few people realize is that the philosophies of Karl Marx, undiluted by the horrendous affairs of the Soviet leadership that happened without his input or consent, stem directly from the same fruits that founded the United States and the modern Europe we see today. While many communists have disagreements with the founding fathers of the United States--slavery, of course, one of the many things we find distasteful--many of us have an admiration for many of the ideas the United States originally stood for precisely because it is part of our own philosophy. Both Karl Marx and Thomas Jefferson used the same system of philosophy to justify their own positions, and in many cases their positions were the same--the difference, of course, being that Marx came a century later and built upon the philosophy of his time, including that of Jefferson. The major tenants of these philosophies--that is, marxism and Jeffersonian democracy--are: fraternity, equality and liberty. These are the things that Communists are supposed to stand for, and these are the things that the United States are supposed to stand for.

Unfortunately, neither have turned out to actually put those things into practice. Communism, as most anyone knows, is almost a dirty word in the United States and most of the western countires throughout, and with some good reasons: the Soviet Union surely did not accomplish the major goals of fraternity, equality or liberty in any sense (avoiding the was it communist, was it not? argument). Yet many people forget that the United States has not stood for that philosophy for quite some time, either. I might confess that the United States does have a sense of fraternity, in that the population generally believes itself to be unified in a common cause, but it has strayed far from the philosophy of liberty and equality and with it so have many other countires that moulded themselves in the 'States image.

We may have more "freedoms" here in the "West" than, say, Sudan--but is it even fair to compare the two? Should we wholly support a government of the rich, by the rich simply because we're better off than the worst of the worst? I think not. "Some freedoms" is not freedom, and "some equality" is not equality. If people wish to stand for the basic tenants of fraternity, equality and liberty, then it is the duty of each and every one of us to act against a government that does not live up to those standards.

The biggest difference that Libertarian Communists such as myself (despite disliking all the classifications) have with most other working-class is the question of economy. Communists believe that nobody should starve. Communists believe that nobody should be forced to work solely for the profit of another, most especially not for the profit of someone that is already in control of our lives. Communists believe that the work of one should be the work of all; that is, we're all in this together. We should work for the betterment of all of us, not for the betterment of a select few rich people who in turn kill us in wars, destroy the air we breath and limit our freedoms. We should live and work free and equal, not sometimes free and even less equal.

I do feel, however, that I need to put a disclaimer here. I don't think that all communists are good communists, just as I don't believe all people are good people. For those of you that turn blue at the mere mention of communists, keep in mind that I am no more responsible for the atrocities of the Soviet Union than a Christian is for the atrocities of the Catholic church, or any "white man" is for slavery or an American for the destruction of the native population in the Americas. These things happen in the name of us, but they do not represent us. I would no more blame a random American for the atrocities done in their name in the past than I would blame myself for Stalin. In sum, I hope that this clarifies my position a bit despite not posting here often now, and hopefully the position of those not so articulate but who feel the same, to those of you that honestly don't know the basic tenants that communists hold dear: fraternity, equality and liberty. Most of us, communist and non-communist alike, can agree that these are the ideals that should always be worked towards. The question is, since we aren't there now, how do we get there? That's what communists ask, and the answer is still elusive.

But we must ask the question, we must try to find the answer, and we must do our best to put those ideals in practice. Our lives, our children and our own liberation depend on it. I'm going to end this with a quote of Thomas Jefferson, in the hope that some people will find my reasoning in their own values - communist or not:

"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

Schumer, Clinton, Kucinich, Feinstein, Giuliani, Obama, Lautenberg, Bloomberg, Ted Kennedy, and McCarthy make a good start on my list.

Jack Layton

This man would happily hand my country over to those who destroy it.

Domestic enemies.

Yes, to sum up the common mans enemy, the rich would likely be public enemy number one.

It is the exploitation of the common man by the influential rich that is the reason I hate the rich and advocate even wealth distribution.

Here's some interesting facts:

The richest top 5% of americans own a staggering 51% of the actual money...

...the richest 10% of americans own an astounding 73% of the money, meaning that the bottom 90% of americans (more or less average people) own 27% of the money.

90% of the population hold 27% of the money?? Does this sound fair to you?

The only way the overall standard of living and equality of power can be evenly distributed is if the money is evenly distributed as well. There are many seemingly powerless individuals is the world (the world is comprised of poverty stricken masses while the rich get richer) so the only hope for equality is to put the power back into the common mans hands by force.

The Rich play the system in their favor, so the only way to change this is to destroy this inequality of power (money) by putting it back into the hands of the common man by force.

Although Marxism and Communism are not perfect ideologies and systems, the concept of negativily affecting the rich for the good of the people is still a concept that needs attention. I am not advocating general misguided violence towards unsuspecting citizens or to the system, but rather a directed plan to put the power back into the common mans hands, and creating a balance of wealth is what will make this possible.

Reguarding the question of who my enemy is, like stated clearly previously, the rich are not just my but OUR enemy. If you make under $100,000 a year and you claim to be enemies with someone else that makes under $100,000 a year then you have already been fooled into playing into the cycle of hating those that don't need to be hated in hopes that you will be ignorant and distracted enough to hate the Rich's appointed enemy, not the rich themself.

Wow. Now my ranting just got me blacklisted and wiretapped for speaking out against the rich and their system of bullshit. Thanks totse.

Too bad technological advancement and means to go about performing it isnt on the list of things you believe.

Next you might tell me you believe that MiGs can take on any of the Aristocracy's Air Force.

__________________
455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2

I'm still trying to figure out why some people feel so entitled to the money of other people. So what if they're rich? It's their money, not yours. You go invent Youtube or something and then give all your money to the poor.

And don't give me that BS about "rich people are lazy and they all inherited it!" because if that was the case they would be too lazy to extort you into working in the salts mines that are suburban america.

that niggas on my block list.

PS: TL/DR

my enemy is socialists. and virtually every 'opressed' american i know is quite happy with their 3000 sq ft house and 2+ cars. the only ones who want socialism are the ones to lazy or stupid to succeed in a society with plenty of class mobility. of course, for uneducated, unskilled, lazy jackasses like yourself, its a nightmare. after all, wheres the nanny to give you your nightly enima?

stupid ass dropout, go fuck yourself. maybe if you had a job you could get some money of your own instead of dreaming about stealing from somebody whos actually earned theirs. except.... you have absolutely no value to society. you are totally expendable, an uneducated, pretentious twat with zero genuine skills, so how is a stupid, unskilled, lazy jackass like yourself supposed to get a job in a workplace that values workers who actually have skills and motivation?

... i understand why you are a douchebag socialist, the same reason every other socialist is. you want to leech of the skills and work of others.

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds pretty good when you have no abilities and lots of "needs", doesnt it? (and it doesnt sound even a little bit good for someone who has lots of abilities and can manage their own needs.) basically a free ride through life, isnt it. you decadent, resource wasting fecal pouch.

Your enemy is the latest incarnation of that suk my dick guy or whatever he was called. He is a troll. A rather uninteresting one at that.

No shit. Which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

__________________
455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2

Don't make anyone your enemy. Only a society in need of a binding cause needs an enemy; instead one should adapt to the conditions opposing what is needed when opposition is needed.

That's exactly what I'm talking about: "my country," "those who would destroy it"

Not that I'm saying he's a good person. But it sounds like sheeple-talk to me.

The common man enjoys life more than the Rich man.

Who gives a shit, just sell weed and smoke it, sell more weed, and smoke more weed. Jeez. Life is so simple.

Sheep? Me? Seriously, you jest.

Although Layton would love to see this country become a pseudo-socialist nanny state wonderland that would make the UK look positively lawless by comparison.

Oh. I only read the title.

Edit: LOL! Just kidding. I actually read most of the posts but I posted that nonsense anyway. Lol, owned.

Government is my enemy.

Anarky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Communism is one of the biggest paradoxes ever thought up: its principles, morals and mediums of liberty and equality are second-to-none. The problem is, that system would never work with human beings. It is unrealistic to say that no one is greedy, and that no one would gladly leech off others' work while doing nothing themselves.

No doubt that the United States Government does favor the rich, but it is unfair to say that they are all greedy, lazy bastards, because a lot of them have worked hard for their money and took innovative initiative. Which most of us don't do. That is why they're rich and we're not.

Although it's true that many rich people do inherit their money and that the wealth in the United States is not evenly spread, if there were to be a change it would be complete and utter chaos--at first anyway. It would take the country years, if not decades to adapt to the new socialist system.

In a country like mine (Canada), we are veering a little more towards the left-wing side of things, even with a right-wing government. Not unlike the US, we have our own set of debates. But there is a certain synergy to our system--left-wing policies with a right-wing background. Free healthcare, good public education, and a supportive welfare system are all part of our society. However, each person must pull their weight in order for the society to survive.

In conclusion, Karl Marx was right in his thinking but left out the one major detail, and basically the one reason why Communism as we know it will never work: Human desires.

thats just capatalism....that makes the system, not the people who utilize the system your enemy....its not supposed to be fair its supposed to be everyone gets what they work for, except the problem is that of course is not true which is the problem with capatlism, im not advocating a change in economic systems im just saying there are current problems within the system but of course nothing is perfect

I have yet to see a better system, though.

Anyone tried reading this thread and the "black family welfare state" thread side by side?

I have three enemies. The poor, the socialists, and the government. The government is my enemy because it gives my money to the poor. The poor are my enemy because they consume my money. The socialists are my enemy because they encourage the government to "selflessly" take my money and give it to the poor.


To toothless joe, about what you said on how America was founded on Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity, similiar to communism, I have to disagree. They may be the same words however they are not the same in each form of government. In a capitalist society, your liberty is the ability to make decisions about your career which are in your own self interest. Equality is each man's ability to prosper from the system. The legal framework of capitalism gives every man an equal ability to prosper, so dont start about how the rich have more power. People who are rich earned it. People who were born rich maintained it.

In communism, equality is that everyone has an equal opportunity to work. They work as whatever the governing figure sees fit for them to work as. I honestly cant think of any liberties that you have in a communist society, but I guess in theory it would be so prosperous that you could afford to go about doing what you want, even though that would never happen.

Making the rich poor will not help anyone. All it will do it hault the progress of the human race. Where do you think products come from? Investors. In a communist society, the only research which can be done is what the governing figure sees fit, because the researcher has not the ability to research whatever on their own. They need a form of funding. A private investor can give them money, and if the product goes nowhere then it is their own faults, but what if the researcher is working on an alloy which could revolutionalize manufacturing. In a communist society, that same person could be a farmer. Capitalism is the only way to innovate.

Elaborate please.

His "Canadian content" foreign policy platform coupled with proposed massive budget cuts for the CF, which would result in an underarmed, underfunded, undermanned military which would also fail to live up to many of its treaty obligations with Canada's allies. Actually wants to retire the CF's combat capability; a military that can't actually fight, great.

He demands a unilateral pullout from Canada's overseas operations, and seems content to let them be "someone else's problem". Additionally, he favours relaxed standards for background checks for immigration because they're too costly.

He wants to increase income taxes heavily to provide more benefits for seniors, students, low-income types, refugees, etc. While this is a noble endeavour in theory, it's not practical. You can't just take money away from people who have it and give it to those who have none until everyone's equal. Economies don't work that way.

His rewriting of the (thankfully defunct) Liberals' budget to include cancellation of business tax credits and industrial investiture funds, instead giving that money to welfare programs. I'm not against welfare for those who truly need it, but he's discouraging business and heavily subsidizing those who bring nothing to the economy. When the businesses go elsewhere, so do the jobs. So you have more people on welfare. Time to increase welfare, then; guess where the money's coming from? Bit of a vicious cycle.

The man proposes to enact gun laws which are every bit as draconian as those of the UK. Since he lives in a city and has a sheltered life, he doesn't seem to realize how much of the population requires firearms as a basic tool. He also expects to magically pull thousands of government-created jobs out of his ass that have absolutely no negative environmental impact yet somehow make Canada's industrial base more viable. This is despite his cancellation of the incentives that make industry want to stay in Canada.

He's never going to have a majority government and he knows it, so he just uses his party's seats to work against whichever government happens to be in power (doesn't seem to matter to him) to keep anything effective from being done. If he can't implement his policies, then nobody can implement anything.

Lets recap:

- Neuter military
- Ostracize allies
- Drive away business
- Take billions from taxpayers
- Give same billions to those who will show no return on investment
- Allow absolutely anybody into country with only most cursory of risk assessments
- Cripple economy
- Prevent any other government from doing anything

He's a neosocialist dog-in-the-manger living in a made-up fantasy land where his half-baked crap actually has a chance of working, and I wouldn't weep for him should someone accidentally bind his hands and push him in front of a bus.

lol, now I see it.

__________________
455FE10422CA29C4933F95052B792AB2

My enemy = no one. If someone has the power to hold me down or restrict me in anyway, they deserve the power they have. I'm a very energetic, defiant person. If they can hold me in place, they get some respect from me.

So if I put you in hand-cuffs, I would get some respect from you?

Thats a big if. But it goes more to if you put me in hand cuffs and can actually subdue me. I have personal issues about submission. You'll get much respect from me if you can subdue me before I die fighting back.

Its got to be some primitive mental alpha dog in the wolf pack thing. I don't know, I don't really know psychology that well.

Your ideals conflict when I read them.. A strange way to live, I'll give you that.

If someone can restrain you, and force you to submit to their will, you will respect them.. but, at the same time, they have to risk you killing yourself in resistance?

I would never submit to someone trying to do that, and would not accept that "sometimes it's inevitable". Resist by any and all means, and don't die in the process; dead men don't help the resistance.

Basically what you are saying is that you submit to force, without regard for right or wrong. If a big black man subdues you physically and brutalizes you severely, or worse even, rapes you, are you gonna respect him?

Fixed.

Autogestion and/or Council Communism