Ask a red

[Huayna Capac357]

You are not a "red." Therefore, do not post

 

[Sui Generis]

You are not a "red." Therefore, do not post

I'm a democratic socialist.

 

[Bill3000]

I'm a democratic socialist.

Read the rules:

3. This is such a great thread! I am pretty radical myself and I want to assist you in answering some of those questions!

That is highly appreciated, but only after my permission. It goes without saying that I approve of collective efforts,indeed what can be said to be the right-wing equivalent of this thread seems to operate on these lines with good results. I also know that some of you would be a most welcome addition to my team, but I think it is just as evident that some structure has to be kept. To quote one of the classics of socialism; "Confidence is good, but control is better". So in case you want to contribute, PM me and just wait for my approval. Most of you will get it.

 

[Sui Generis]

Read the rules:

Oh... sorry.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Umm... if it is controlled as a one party state with the communist party as that one party, it is a communist country.

Aaaand you just lost your credibility in this subject.

Move along, move along.

Yea, I'm talking about Marxism, not Marxist-Leninism, or Marxist-Leninism-Maoism for that matter.

Please, tell me what Communist Revolutions that were by-the-book Marxist.

Anyway... I highly doubt that the capitalist states will be overthrown and replaced with red replacements. For petes sake, if they were not overthrown during the great depression, it is not going to happen now.

The purpose of this thread is not to argue such things, it is to answer questions about Communism and Socialism. If you do not have a question, please leave.

You are not a "red." Therefore, do not post

I'm a democratic socialist.

The issue is that you don't have permission to post, as expressed by the OP. Consult him first.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I'm a democratic socialist.

But you say communism is failed. So you n'est pas un red.

 

[Kennigit]

Just a quick historical question here: In another thread (quest for peace), someone referred to Marx as supporting war for the industrial complexes of the nation, or something along that lines. I was under the strong impression that Marx opposed nationalism and thus was opposed to wars, and certainly would not support war as necessary to keep industrial production up. Can someone clarify?

Thanks for this thread, I've been along since the start.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I've certainly never heard anything like that. I'm not surprised that someone would say that, though, sometimes Communism becomes scapegoat for lots of things, sort of like how Jews were accused of being behind both war movements and peace movements and communism and capitalism and the days being shorter in the winter and why stewing cranberries like applesauce makes them taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does etc etc etc...

I think you get my point. Though perhaps they were referring to the idea that newly formed socialist nations should either encourage or actively cause revolutions elsewhere, which might include invading those nations; only Communist China ever had these military goals, and those largely died with Mao himself.

 

[Arwon]

Please, tell me what Communist Revolutions that were by-the-book Marxist.

The Industrial?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

luceafarul, what's your opinion (if any) of Walter Bagehot?
Furthermore, to what extent do you view socialism as an instrumental or a terminal value?

Oh, and I'd like to celebrate...

Moderator Action: Warned for (deleted) PDMA
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[eoc]

I'm Chinese, I'm "red" and yellow, heres my red opinions:

democracy ---- you vote for whom/whatelse you yourselft want to vote for.
communist ---- you vote for whom/whatelse the Communist Party want to vote for.
democracy ---- you can blame your government.
communist ---- you can't blame your government.
democracy ---- democracy is people's right.
communist ---- democracy is the bounty given by CP.
democracy ---- rich men take money into their country.
communist ---- rich men take money out from their country.
democracy ---- Laws are to be obeyed.
communist ---- Laws are to be debated.
democracy ---- your taxes made your government serve you better.
communist ---- the government serves nothing but your taxes.

 

[RedRalph]

democracy ---- you vote for whom/whatelse you yourselft want to vote for.
communist ---- you vote for whom/whatelse the Communist Party want to vote for.
democracy ---- you can blame your government.
communist ---- you can't blame your government.
democracy ---- democracy is people's right.
communist ---- democracy is the bounty given by CP.
democracy ---- rich men take money into their country.
communist ---- rich men take money out from their country.
democracy ---- Laws are to be obeyed.
communist ---- Laws are to be debated.
democracy ---- your taxes made your government serve you better.
communist ---- the government serves nothing but your taxes.

devastating political critique

 

[eoc]

to #232, why polictical? Im just a comman civilian. I just tell what I am being experienced.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

This is ask a red, not use cliché objections to totalitarianism.

 

[holy king]

to #232, why polictical? Im just a comman civilian. I just tell what I am being experienced.

the fact that you compare an economic system with a form of government alone...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is ask a red, not use cliché objections to totalitarianism.

Just report them and ignore them. I have been reporting them, but I'm pretty sure the mods ignore me most of the time.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Great thread . What can today's world do and individual parties or states do , to reach a future communist state ?

As already explained, political work, participation in organizations and actions, and a lot of patience.

Don't worry,i'm not angry for that. (and if you would resemble Homer you at least win in typing blind!

Or ancient Greek perhaps?

Well I like to see myself as a social-democrat with very social liberal stances. I voted myself for the socialists and for a fringe party,yes(4% is not a lot, heh?) so, the sentence: to vote for a fringe party is a vote wasted, not from the perspective who would never vote for one, but one who did and is not patient.

Phil, the importance of patience you must learn. No escape from that there is.

What I' for is a more egalitarian world, in which countries are regionalised so direct democracy becomes possible and then work as much as possible with that, but also let there be a representative government who deals with the interregional affairs in an European Union.

Keep in mind that socialalism is about production relations. Just mentioning it.

I first thought this idea was horrendous, until I had a discussion with a politician, a centrist figure and a very smart and developed man. I had great fun and learned a lot with his economics and law classes. I also became more humanist under the learnings of an ex-priest who I had also many learning with. One moment of shame ame from me that i would interpret differently in Nietsche, and he was damn right, becuase looking back at it now is a bit ackward for me. [/QUOTE
I am afraid I don't quite get this.

That is a great quote.

Yes it is.

what do you mean with a Gerstein-line?

Karl Gerstein was a christian humanist who joined the SS to save Jews. He had limited success. A Gerstein-line means joining a party or organization to change it from within, like those Armani-socialists claim they want to do with the neo-liberal EU. I don't believe in this.

true that, but isn't there were a certain problem comes from in meetings? in weekdays the working man would rather be home earlier then the student and the loft-socialists.

True. On the other hand the working man and woman will realize that if they don't fight for their rights nobody will. One always find some time for the most important things in life.

enfin, that's just a sidenote, you are absolutely right.

Unfortunately I am always right.

Are you actually a communist/commie/commie bastard etc.?

Yes.

I've heard it said, by communists and non-communists alike, that a post-revolutionary state would be necessarily one-party. To me this seems the antithesis of democracy. Of what worth could a people's republic be who does not allow its people a legal avenue of change? Unless you think that a society born in revolution should equally perish in another to remove it? Also, if this is true of societies born in revolution, what of those born by democracy? Would such change also necessitate the presence of only one party? I ask this obviously of socialist states, since no communist society can be instantly born, either by vote or by arms.

What you describe is the leninist idea of a vanguard party.
This is not something that is necessary.
However, it is situational. Probably in Russia in 1917 this was necessary, due to the low level of political consciousness among the Russian workers, many of whom were basically serfs. There is no reason that this should be necessary in the most developed countries today.

I'm a democratic socialist.

Hardly. You sound more like a "democratic" "socialist".

Just a quick historical question here: In another thread (quest for peace), someone referred to Marx as supporting war for the industrial complexes of the nation, or something along that lines. I was under the strong impression that Marx opposed nationalism and thus was opposed to wars, and certainly would not support war as necessary to keep industrial production up. Can someone clarify?

I will check that thread, but there must be some misunderstanding here.

Thanks for this thread, I've been along since the start.

You're welcome.

luceafarul, what's your opinion (if any) of Walter Bagehot?

Clever fellow, not somebody who I ever was inspired by.

Furthermore, to what extent do you view socialism as an instrumental or a terminal value?

Can't quantify it, but a well-functioning socialist society has a high degree of terminal value. I for one would be happy to live in such a society.

Oh, and I'd like to celebrate...

Moderator Action: Warned for (deleted) PDMA
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Pots saperment, I missed that one! Could somebody please tell me what that image was?

Just report them and ignore them. I have been reporting them, but I'm pretty sure the mods ignore me most of the time.

Could be.
Anyway, please people, just ignore those wretches. They obviously have no life, and seeing their lame attempts to troll with style, I don't think they will get one in the nearest future either.

 

[Rossiya]

When did you decide that communism was the thing for you?
What do you make of the Communist Manifesto?

 

[innonimatu]

I've heard it said, by communists and non-communists alike, that a post-revolutionary state would be necessarily one-party. To me this seems the antithesis of democracy. Of what worth could a people's republic be who does not allow its people a legal avenue of change? Unless you think that a society born in revolution should equally perish in another to remove it? Also, if this is true of societies born in revolution, what of those born by democracy? Would such change also necessitate the presence of only one party? I ask this obviously of socialist states, since no communist society can be instantly born, either by vote or by arms.

I'd just like to add something: communists would actually do away with parties altogether, their rationale being that political parties represent class interests, therefore in a communist society there would be no need to have political parties. Everyone would broadly have the same political interests (where politics is identified with the dispute over control of resources), so the party-based systems from the capitalist phase would cease to be useful.

There would still be differences of opinion, of course. This is where communism fails to provide some single, simple answer: how could power be divided in a classless society? Lots of different proposals... and also about how to get there. All the disputes between different branches of socialism/communist/anarchism are about how to organize that new stage of society, or how to get to that state. The getting there is usually assumed to be inevitable, given enough time - technological progress and the increase of production must eventually cause social changes leading there, if society doesn't stagnate (that was Marx's thesis). The arguments about the how to get there were about avoiding a perceived stagnation or speeding the process (something Marx seems to have been very much committed to).

 

[RedRalph]

Luceafarul, West36 and my other fellow reds: What's your take on religion?