NationStates

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:

Mirial Magna wrote:How about you use Bourgeois Communists or Red Barons instead.
They roll off the tongue much better.

No it sounds better my way, they call themselves Communist Socialists, demand Communist Socialist Sacrifices from the Cuban and Chinese People for the revolutions, like from my family still in Cuba and they live like rich communist Socialist Capitalists.

Okay, so you're saying that non-communist socialism is fine?
You'd be cool with them if they were, say, national socialist capitalists?

If not, then there's no need for redundancy.

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:wot

Ok, ill give you two examples, the Chinese Communist Socialist Capitalists and the Cuban Communist Socialist Capitalists:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1134785

Those look like capitalists to me, but OK.

Mirial Magna wrote:

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:No it sounds better my way, they call themselves Communist Socialists, demand Communist Socialist Sacrifices from the Cuban and Chinese People for the revolutions, like from my family still in Cuba and they live like rich communist Socialist Capitalists.

Okay, so you're saying that non-communist socialism is fine?
You'd be cool with them if they were, say, national socialist capitalists?

If not, then there's no need for redundancy.

I did not say this, you say this. This is not redundancy of any kind, I am stating what they advocate for the revolutionary masses and don't practice for themselves.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:Ok, ill give you two examples, the Chinese Communist Socialist Capitalists and the Cuban Communist Socialist Capitalists:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1134785

Those look like capitalists to me, but OK.

I get what he's saying, though.

These champagne commies expect people to live a frugal communist life while living lavish lifestyles themselves.

Champagne communism is the opposite of aristocracy.

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:

Mirial Magna wrote:Okay, so you're saying that non-communist socialism is fine?
You'd be cool with them if they were, say, national socialist capitalists?

If not, then there's no need for redundancy.

I did not say this, you say this. This is not redundancy of any kind, I am stating what they advocate for the revolutionary masses and don't practice for themselves.

I agree with you about these lavish anti-aristocrats. You're putting forth a fairly reasonable argument.

I just think you'd convince more people if you didn't use such a hard to say descriptor.

Mirial Magna wrote:Alright, comrades, is China bro or asshoe?

Totalitarian dictatorships are not kosher

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:Ok, ill give you two examples, the Chinese Communist Socialist Capitalists and the Cuban Communist Socialist Capitalists:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1134785

Those look like capitalists to me, but OK.

Of course they do, but not for me in Cuba or for my family still in Cuba, and not for the Chinese people in China, only for themselves, so my description of them as Rich Communist Socialist Capitalist is very accurate.

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:

Mirial Magna wrote:How about you use Bourgeois Communists or Red Barons instead.
They roll off the tongue much better.

No it sounds better my way, they call themselves Communist Socialists, demand Communist Socialist Sacrifices from the Cuban and Chinese People for the revolutions, like from my family still in Cuba and they live like rich communist Socialist Capitalists. Same answer to Cekoviu.

Does anyone refer to themselves as a "Communist Socialist"? I have only ever seen this term being used by right-wingers.

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Those look like capitalists to me, but OK.

Of course they do, but not for me in Cuba or for my family still in Cuba, and not for the Chinese people in China, only for themselves, so my description of them as Rich Communist Socialist Capitalist is very accurate.

We can only hope the Cuban people come to their senses and overthrow the Communist regime.

Mirial Magna wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Those look like capitalists to me, but OK.

I get what he's saying, though.

These champagne commies expect people to live a frugal communist life while living lavish lifestyles themselves.

Champagne communism is the opposite of aristocracy.

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:I did not say this, you say this. This is not redundancy of any kind, I am stating what they advocate for the revolutionary masses and don't practice for themselves.

I agree with you about these lavish anti-aristocrats. You're putting forth a fairly reasonable argument.

I just think you'd convince more people if you didn't use such a hard to say descriptor.

No, they are aristocrats. It’s just a different way of going about aristocracy. If you’re robbing people of the worth of their labour, you are a capitalist. Cuba is their company. Tell me, what is the difference between being a leader in Cuba and being the CEO of a company?

Cisairse wrote:

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:No it sounds better my way, they call themselves Communist Socialists, demand Communist Socialist Sacrifices from the Cuban and Chinese People for the revolutions, like from my family still in Cuba and they live like rich communist Socialist Capitalists. Same answer to Cekoviu.

Does anyone refer to themselves as a "Communist Socialist"? I have only ever seen this term being used by right-wingers.

Even if they don't call themselves as Communist Socialist that is how they live while they make the revolutionary masses live like Communist Socialists. One of Fidel or Raul's sons or nephews recently said, I am a revolutionary communist but that doesn't mean I have to be poor, lol. Rich for them like Capitalist and poor for the revolutionary masses they claim to care for.

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
Does anyone refer to themselves as a "Communist Socialist"? I have only ever seen this term being used by right-wingers.

Even if they don't call themselves as Communist Socialist that is how they live while they make the revolutionary masses live like Communist Socialists. One of Fidel or Raul's sons or nephews recently said, I am a revolutionary communist but that doesn't mean I have to be poor, lol. Rich for them like Capitalist and poor for the revolutionary masses they claim to care for.

Do you have a definition for "Communist Socialist"? It seems like a buzzword at best, considering I have never seen it outside of NSG.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Mirial Magna wrote:I get what he's saying, though.

These champagne commies expect people to live a frugal communist life while living lavish lifestyles themselves.

Champagne communism is the opposite of aristocracy.

I agree with you about these lavish anti-aristocrats. You're putting forth a fairly reasonable argument.

I just think you'd convince more people if you didn't use such a hard to say descriptor.

No, they are aristocrats. It’s just a different way of going about aristocracy. If you’re robbing people of the worth of their labour, you are a capitalist. Cuba is their company. Tell me, what is the difference between being a leader in Cuba and being the CEO of a company?

lol, I could be a CEO of a Company in the USA and other nations, you could be the CEO of a company in the USA or other nations, we could all be CEO's of companies in the USA or other nations under a western style capitalist nation, in Cuba only the Castros can be CEO's in Cuba, the military generals through Fidel's brother in law, General Luis Alberto Rodríguez López-Callejas runs Cuba through the Gaesa Gaviota Corporations. No matter what I say you will not agree with me. But thank your for stating Cuba is their company.

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:

Cisairse wrote:
Does anyone refer to themselves as a "Communist Socialist"? I have only ever seen this term being used by right-wingers.

Even if they don't call themselves as Communist Socialist that is how they live while they make the revolutionary masses live like Communist Socialists. One of Fidel or Raul's sons or nephews recently said, I am a revolutionary communist but that doesn't mean I have to be poor, lol. Rich for them like Capitalist and poor for the revolutionary masses they claim to care for.

You realize that communist socialist is kinda redundant, right? It's like someone calling us Hispanic Latinos.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Mirial Magna wrote:I get what he's saying, though.

These champagne commies expect people to live a frugal communist life while living lavish lifestyles themselves.

Champagne communism is the opposite of aristocracy.

I agree with you about these lavish anti-aristocrats. You're putting forth a fairly reasonable argument.

I just think you'd convince more people if you didn't use such a hard to say descriptor.

No, they are aristocrats. It’s just a different way of going about aristocracy. If you’re robbing people of the worth of their labour, you are a capitalist. Cuba is their company. Tell me, what is the difference between being a leader in Cuba and being the CEO of a company?

No, they're Kleptocrats.
In an Aristocracy, the leaders have no possessions. They are entirely at the mercy of the people for their daily provision.
Have you even read Plato?

Mirial Magna wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
No, they are aristocrats. It’s just a different way of going about aristocracy. If you’re robbing people of the worth of their labour, you are a capitalist. Cuba is their company. Tell me, what is the difference between being a leader in Cuba and being the CEO of a company?

No, they're Kleptocrats.
In an Aristocracy, the leaders have no possessions. They are entirely at the mercy of the people for their daily provision.
Have you even read Plato?

This is definitely true. I found out recently that the british taxpayers give millions a year to the monarchy...to just be the monarchy. They don't really have any real authority and serve simply as the mascots for the UK, and if tomorrow the british decided to stop paying them money to basically do nothing, they would be working at McDonalds or Burger King.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:Even if they don't call themselves as Communist Socialist that is how they live while they make the revolutionary masses live like Communist Socialists. One of Fidel or Raul's sons or nephews recently said, I am a revolutionary communist but that doesn't mean I have to be poor, lol. Rich for them like Capitalist and poor for the revolutionary masses they claim to care for.

You realize that communist socialist is kinda redundant, right? It's like someone calling us Hispanic Latinos.

No it is not redundant in any way, it is what they are. This has nothing to do with us being called Hispanic Latinos, in my case you can all call me Cuban, Cuban American, Hispanic, Hispanos and Latino, I identify with all these terms, it does not bother me to be identified as so.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Mirial Magna wrote:No, they're Kleptocrats.
In an Aristocracy, the leaders have no possessions. They are entirely at the mercy of the people for their daily provision.
Have you even read Plato?

This is definitely true. I found out recently that the british taxpayers give millions a year to the monarchy...to just be the monarchy. They don't really have any real authority and serve simply as the mascots for the UK, and if tomorrow the british decided to stop paying them money to basically do nothing, they would be working at McDonalds or Burger King.

In the system I support, there wouldn't be a monarchy.
Government officials, aka aristocrats, would be chosen by an AI based on how they score in various skill and personality tests.
That being said, however, they are able to be voted out by the people at any time.

Mirial Magna wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
No, they are aristocrats. It’s just a different way of going about aristocracy. If you’re robbing people of the worth of their labour, you are a capitalist. Cuba is their company. Tell me, what is the difference between being a leader in Cuba and being the CEO of a company?

No, they're Kleptocrats.
In an Aristocracy, the leaders have no possessions. They are entirely at the mercy of the people for their daily provision.
Have you even read Plato?

Is that the arrogance you want to hit me with? Alright.

I hope you understand that the meaning of the word 'aristocracy' has changed over the past 2500 years. Who would have thought. Plato was not alive during the Roman Republic, when the aristocracy owned large tracts of land and vast fortunes, or the Middle Ages, when the aristocracy formed the sole landed class.

If you meant Plato's conception of aristocracy, you should have mentioned that, because his particular conception of aristocracy is not in line with common parlance.

Similarly, a Communist Kleptocrat is impossible, because in a communist state there is no government which can take the use of your property from you. Have you even read Marx?

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Mirial Magna wrote:No, they're Kleptocrats.
In an Aristocracy, the leaders have no possessions. They are entirely at the mercy of the people for their daily provision.
Have you even read Plato?

Is that the arrogance you want to hit me with? Alright.

I hope you understand that the meaning of the word 'aristocracy' has changed over the past 2500 years. Who would have thought. Plato was not alive during the Roman Republic, when the aristocracy owned large tracts of land and vast fortunes, or the Middle Ages, when the aristocracy formed the sole landed class.

If you meant Plato's conception of aristocracy, you should have mentioned that, because his particular conception of aristocracy is not in line with common parlance.

Similarly, a Communist Kleptocrat is impossible, because in a communist state there is no government which can take the use of your property from you. Have you even read Marx?

Yeah, but there are those who use a communist system to give themselves more possessions.
The problem with communism as it was applied in the past is that there always had to be someone to enforce the progression towards and maintenance of a communist system. These someones tended to be rather greedy and power-hungry individuals. But if you opposed them, you were charged with opposing communism as a whole.

Cisairse wrote:

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:Even if they don't call themselves as Communist Socialist that is how they live while they make the revolutionary masses live like Communist Socialists. One of Fidel or Raul's sons or nephews recently said, I am a revolutionary communist but that doesn't mean I have to be poor, lol. Rich for them like Capitalist and poor for the revolutionary masses they claim to care for.

Do you have a definition for "Communist Socialist"? It seems like a buzzword at best, considering I have never seen it outside of NSG.

The Cuban regime calls itself Communist, Socialist and the Revolutionary Government, they say they are the Continuity of the Revolution. The Sandinista Communist Socialists of Nicaragua, Bernie also praised probably did too.

Mirial Magna wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Is that the arrogance you want to hit me with? Alright.

I hope you understand that the meaning of the word 'aristocracy' has changed over the past 2500 years. Who would have thought. Plato was not alive during the Roman Republic, when the aristocracy owned large tracts of land and vast fortunes, or the Middle Ages, when the aristocracy formed the sole landed class.

If you meant Plato's conception of aristocracy, you should have mentioned that, because his particular conception of aristocracy is not in line with common parlance.

Similarly, a Communist Kleptocrat is impossible, because in a communist state there is no government which can take the use of your property from you. Have you even read Marx?

Yeah, but there are those who use a communist system to give themselves more possessions.
The problem with communism as it was applied in the past is that there always had to be someone to enforce the progression towards and maintenance of a communist system. These someones tended to be rather greedy and power-hungry individuals. But if you opposed them, you were charged with opposing communism as a whole.

You literally brought up the muh actual definition for Aristocracy to rebuke a "aristocrats don't function the way Plato said they're supposed to"

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Mirial Magna wrote:No, they're Kleptocrats.
In an Aristocracy, the leaders have no possessions. They are entirely at the mercy of the people for their daily provision.
Have you even read Plato?

Is that the arrogance you want to hit me with? Alright.

I hope you understand that the meaning of the word 'aristocracy' has changed over the past 2500 years. Who would have thought. Plato was not alive during the Roman Republic, when the aristocracy owned large tracts of land and vast fortunes, or the Middle Ages, when the aristocracy formed the sole landed class.

If you meant Plato's conception of aristocracy, you should have mentioned that, because his particular conception of aristocracy is not in line with common parlance.

Similarly, a Communist Kleptocrat is impossible, because in a communist state there is no government which can take the use of your property from you. Have you even read Marx?

It is a misunderstanding to suggest there is no "government" in communist society. What it lacks is a state, specifically in the Marxian sense of the word. "The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production"; this "administration of things" is a government in the colloquial sense of it being administration - a system wherein the interactions deciding the governance of society resides.

Mirial Magna wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Those look like capitalists to me, but OK.

I get what he's saying, though.

These champagne commies expect people to live a frugal communist life while living lavish lifestyles themselves.

Champagne communism is the opposite of aristocracy.

Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba wrote:I did not say this, you say this. This is not redundancy of any kind, I am stating what they advocate for the revolutionary masses and don't practice for themselves.

I agree with you about these lavish anti-aristocrats. You're putting forth a fairly reasonable argument.

I just think you'd convince more people if you didn't use such a hard to say descriptor.

Thank you for getting what I am saying. But no matter what I call them, what I say, what video links I provide, I will not convince any of them to stop supporting, denying and or excusing the eternal Castro dictatorship regime.

Like this Link:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1134785

Cisairse wrote:So was monarchy.

Except by the time America became a Republic it had been practicing localized self-governance for awhile. The model that replaced monarchy had been tested and found viable. In the case of abolishing private property, the results have been a good deal more dim overall, especially after the initial luster of revolution has vanished. We get political and social corruption on a broad scale. We get the mob burning things and committing atrocities. We get the institutionalization of lawlessness.

Cisairse wrote:Quite unfortunate for them.

Mhm. It's probably not a good idea to shill for one of the people who made that system.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Is that the arrogance you want to hit me with? Alright.

I hope you understand that the meaning of the word 'aristocracy' has changed over the past 2500 years. Who would have thought. Plato was not alive during the Roman Republic, when the aristocracy owned large tracts of land and vast fortunes, or the Middle Ages, when the aristocracy formed the sole landed class.

You don't let capitalists define communism/socialism. Why should we allow socialists to define aristocracy?