Communism

[Wraith23]

Nope, no doubt you're taking it out of context and trying to apply it in isolation. It's not even clear what you intended by bringing that up.

The context is very clear, not even Marx though his ideas were valid

I'm sure you think sound-bites are intelligent but, honestly, it's hard to take them seriously.

Oh please no!, your respect means so much to me!

I assure you that most of them have probably thought about it more carefully than you have.

And yet they remain blind, I must say its kind of pathetic.

 

[Wraith23]

uh.. guy, I know I withdrew myself from this topic, but that statement ain't got a lick of sense unless you happen to be a pundit. What Marx taught and what Marxism was are two different teachings altogether. And Marx, strangely enough, didn't agree with parts of Marxism (an ideology named after him). So it doesn't say much about refuting the other.

Uh? are you being serious?
Marx admitted that the dogmatic foundations of his "scientific socialism" were wrong and inapplicable.

You may want to distance Marx from his work but I find that absurd.

 

[luiz]

The context is very clear, not even Marx though his ideas were valid

To be fair, the context is that Marx thought his ideas were being misinterpreted by self-proclaimed marxists, not that he disavowed his own ideas.

 

[Azale]

Noncon is getting close to being a reactionary bourgeois pig.

Yes, we might need to "reinvigorate" his party spirit, as Mao would suggest.

 

[Gustave5436]

People aren't satisfied with being below other people, either, and once that is removed, they'll never go back.

Exactly the reason why, in the several intermittent generations between the passing of the 13th amendment to the US constitution, chattel slavery has yet to be re-implemented.

To a communist society, the idea of private property ownership would seem as absurd as chattel slavery seems to us.

Leadership and directorship is not a ruling class. Sorry. Besides, Marx didn't mean a literal "dictatorship," its a figurative term.

Then why the conflict between Marx and Bakunin, and their respective authoritarian/libertarian factions of the IWA?

This guy got it, I cant understand why socialists cant

Because I'm too rational a person to be satisfied by false dichotomies and strawmen.

 

[Defiant47]

Revolutions tend to be violent, and incur a lot of collateral damage.
In any case, the point is moot, because there will be NO revolution.

Of course not. The people are fed too much misinformation, lies, and propaganda in order to ensure they remain loyal to capitalism and despise all facets of communism. One of the most important parts of leadership and power is to maintain the status quo.

Answer the points, instead of the smoke and mirrors crap, if you please. I've been nothing but polite, yet harsh, like Paxman, and you have turned almost instantly to insults, faux-intellectualism, arrogance and being unpleasant.

You're not nearly as intellectual, superior, or as convincing as you think you are, so please stop acting it.

It's hard to deal with people completely misrepresenting communism. If you don't see how focusing on the atrocities of the U.S.S.R. is completely useless to the topic at hand, then you don't really know communism.

 

[nonconformist]

But iof we're discussion Trotskyism and such, why *shouldn't* we discuss the crimes of the USSR?

 

[luiz]

e completely misrepresenting communism. If you don't see how focusing on the atrocities of the U.S.S.R. is completely useless to the topic at hand, then you don't really know communism.

How is discussing the atrocities of the world's largest and most powerful communist regime to exist "useless" in a topic about communism?

If we cannot blame the atrocities of the USSR on Communism, then I say we cannot blame anything on Capitalism either. All problems on modern capitalist societies only exist because they're imperfect. If we lived under TRUE capitalism everybody would be as rich as Bill Gates and have 10 supermodels as wifes. And there would be no rain, and no cold, and no wars, and we would all live 500 years and hold hands and sing under the rainbow.

 

[Defiant47]

How is discussing the atrocities of the world's largest and most powerful communist regime to exist "useless" in a topic about communism?

How is discussing the atrocities of the world's worst genocidal dictator Adolf Hitler "useless" in a topic about vegetarianism?

 

[luiz]

How is discussing the atrocities of the world's worst genocidal dictator Adolf Hitler "useless" in a topic about vegetarianism?

That's not a valid analogy. Vegetarianism was not a determinant factor in Hitler's personality, while communism was very much the main factor determining the outcome of the soviet experience.

It would be equivalent if people were discussing the atrocities if the USSR in a thread about cold places.

 

[Defiant47]

That's not a valid analogy. Vegetarianism was not a determinant factor in Hitler's personality, while communism was very much the main factor determining the outcome of the soviet experience.

It would be equivalent if people were discussing the atrocities if the USSR in a thread about cold places.

Actually, the brutal dictatorial regime was the determinant factor in the soviet experience. Unless you want to start arguing that communism cannot happen without a dictatorship, evil actions of a dictatorship have little relevance over its economic system.

 

[Azale]

Actually, the brutal dictatorial regime was the determinant factor in the soviet experience. Unless you want to start arguing that communism cannot happen without a dictatorship, evil actions of a dictatorship have little relevance over its economic system.

Umm, that's exactly what they were arguing about.

 

[Gustave5436]

That's not a valid analogy. Vegetarianism was not a determinant factor in Hitler's personality, while communism was very much the main factor determining the outcome of the soviet experience.

I wasn't aware that egalitarianism is what caused certain upper middle class individuals to seize control of the Russian Social Democratic party and, later, stage a coup against the government. It's funny, I always thought it was merely the desire of a few elites for political power; ironically enough, similar to Hitler's putsch (except much more successful).

Of course, those elites used socialist rhetoric to get the people to support them, but then again, elites had previously disingenously used liberal rhetoric to get the people to support their own bids for power. Liberalism was not discredited by the laissez-faire charlatans of the 19th century (liberalism being inconsistent with laissez-faire capitalism, since personal freedom is contradicted by private property ownership, just as socialism is inconsistent with the existence of hierarchical authority, as exists in state-capitalism), why should socialism be discredited by the state-capitalist charlatans of the 20th century? Because you, personally, align yourself with the sham-"liberalism" of those 19th century elites, and thus you are heavily biased in its favor?

Actually, the brutal dictatorial regime was the determinant factor in the soviet experience. Unless you want to start arguing that communism cannot happen without a dictatorship, evil actions of a dictatorship have little relevance over its economic system.

Bolshevism is collectivist, not communist. The Bolsheviks continued to use wage labor in their allegedly "socialist" nation.

 

[aronnax]

Well, it's not like the right winger's idea of culture is worth anything:

 

[Snorrius]

 

[REDY]

 

[Heretic_Cata]

 

[Flying Pig]

Way to derail the thread, people

 

[aelf]

The context is very clear, not even Marx though his ideas were valid

That says it all about what you know. It doesn't even make sense.

Oh please no!, your respect means so much to me!

None earned, don't worry.

And yet they remain blind, I must say its kind of pathetic.

Oh, and ignorance isn't pathetic? Only in the US of A

 

[GoodGame]

Communist culture is far superior, comrade!