Capitalist Lies About Communism

[Comrade_Kole]

Hello, I am new to RevLeft. My friend told me about this website and said that you guys were very smart and knew basically everything about Communism. I've had some right-wingers tell me that most Communist leaders (they mainly pointed out Lenin, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao Zedong, and Kim Jon Il as priome examples of Communism). This caused me to think critically about what Communism realloy meant. By Karl Marx's definition, it's "a stateless, classless collectivism" and "a dictatorship of the proletariat". So my question to you is: What are the biggest and most important capitalist lies that I should look out for, and how can I reveal them as such without sounding like an idiot?

[Nolan]

Hello, I am new to RevLeft. My friend told me about this website and said that you guys were very smart and knew basically everything about Communism. I've had some right-wingers tell me that most Communist leaders (they mainly pointed out Lenin, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao Zedong, and Kim Jon Il as priome examples of Communism). This caused me to think critically about what Communism realloy meant. By Karl Marx's definition, it's "a stateless, classless collectivism" and "a dictatorship of the proletariat". So my question to you is: What are the biggest and most important capitalist lies that I should look out for, and how can I reveal them as such without sounding like an idiot?

Well, first of all, Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism is the transitional phase to Communism, or a stateless, classless society. The state still exists under Socialism, though under worker control.

[Comrade_Kole]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. So, are there any forms of socialism that we are against?

[Nolan]

National "Socialism" :laugh:

[Comrade_Kole]

What are the differences between Leninist-Marxist Socialism and National Socialism?

[Nolan]

What are the differences between Leninist-Marxist Socialism and National Socialism?

One is Socialism and the other is Fascism.

[Comrade_Kole]

Ah, I see. Can you explain Fascism without using biased language?

[Nolan]

Ah, I see. Can you explain Fascism without using biased language?

Fascism has many forms. Its two defining characteristics are extreme nationalism, and/or racism, and totalitarian government. Old school Fascists usually advocate a "third way" economic system, usually called Corporatism. An American Fascist told me this once:

"In Fascist Corporatism, all companies of a specific trade get together to make decisions- much like a guild. The State serves as a mediator.

The state runs organizations called Corporations for all major industries. All major companies in these industries are required to have membership.

In Corporation meetings, issues are brought up and discussed over what is best for the nation.

If one company goes off and does what's in it's own best interests like in the Capitalist system, it can be stopped because the Corporations are state owned

This way, business can better serve the nation and make sure that the needs of the State and nation are put before the wants of businessmen.

Corporatism is a prime example of the Third Position- alternatives to the materialistic systems of capitalism and socialism."

Many of the Neo-Nazi boneheads don't care about economics.

[ArrowLance]

Lies you should be on the look out for involve our history. They fabricate negative events, hide positive ones, exaggerate existent negative events, misrepresent events, misattribute events.

They also do a great deal to misrepresent our ideals and make up definitions of human behaviour that supposedly are incompatible with their strawman.

Fascism, as I see it and understand it, is essentially a 'weak vs strong' (instead of 'oppressed vs oppressor') view on class conflict. It also has corporativist ideals.

[cb9's_unity]

In my opinion, the best way to learn about socialism and communism is to drop all of your previous perceptions about them. Almost nothing capitalists tend to say about communism or communist leaders is true. It will take a long time for you to figure how you feel about leaders who have been labeled communists and what communism has been or will be.

Probably the easiest capitalist lie to dispute is the notion that communism has failed because of its "utopian" ideals. There is an idea that communist nations have failed because the people in the country's have had no incentive to work. The has essentially no basis in fact. To my knowledge all allegedly communist country's have retained some form of a wage system. To my knowledge the lazy didn't exactly skate by in the USSR. Capitalists tend to show how little they know about communist theory as well as conditions in the USSR when they make such idiotic statements.

It is also important to stress that communist theory simply doesn't accept the laziness that is allowed in capitalist country's. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and "to each according to his contribution" are both communist slogans that emphasize the need for a person to contribute to his society. Capitalists often like to ignore these sayings, or their implications, as it often clashes with the capitalist idea that communism is Utopian.

When it comes to the history of "communist party's" things get much harder to define. Some on the left (like myself) believe that communist party's in Russia and China became bureaucratized because of specific, avoidable, policies. I also firmly believe that many country's where communist party's have come to power did not have conditions conducive to a successful socialist revolution. However some on the left believe that for a time socialist revolutions where successful and where only brought down because of later "revisionist" segments within communist party's coming to power. I suggest you look through this site as well as history books to decide which you believe.

I could write more, but trying to write anything with even a touch of eloquence has been damn near impossible for me today.

[Comrade_Kole]

That sounds a lot like Socialism to me (materials, factories, etc are State-owned). Can you tell me the difference?

I find it funny that a lot of neonazis don't know how the economy should be run.

[Comrade_Kole]

In my opinion, the best way to learn about socialism and communism is to drop all of your previous perceptions about them. Almost nothing capitalists tend to say about communism or communist leaders is true. It will take a long time for you to figure how you feel about leaders who have been labeled communists and what communism has been or will be.

Probably the easiest capitalist lie to dispute is the notion that communism has failed because of its "utopian" ideals. There is an idea that communist nations have failed because the people in the country's have had no incentive to work. The has essentially no basis in fact. To my knowledge all allegedly communist country's have retained some form of a wage system. To my knowledge the lazy didn't exactly skate by in the USSR. Capitalists tend to show how little they know about communist theory as well as conditions in the USSR when they make such idiotic statements.

It is also important to stress that communist theory simply doesn't accept the laziness that is allowed in capitalist country's. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and "to each according to his contribution" are both communist slogans that emphasize the need for a person to contribute to his society. Capitalists often like to ignore these sayings, or their implications, as it often clashes with the capitalist idea that communism is Utopian.

When it comes to the history of "communist party's" things get much harder to define. Some on the left (like myself) believe that communist party's in Russia and China became bureaucratized because of specific, avoidable, policies. I also firmly believe that many country's where communist party's have come to power did not have conditions conducive to a successful socialist revolution. However some on the left believe that for a time socialist revolutions where successful and where only brought down because of later "revisionist" segments within communist party's coming to power. I suggest you look through this site as well as history books to decide which you believe.

I could write more, but trying to write anything with even a touch of eloquence has been damn near impossible for me today.

Thank you for this useful post.

[ArrowLance]

That sounds a lot like Socialism to me (materials, factories, etc are State-owned). Can you tell me the difference?

I find it funny that a lot of neonazis don't know how the economy should be run.

Socialism is a bit more than just state ownership, in my opinion another defining feature is its bias for the proletariat.

A similar example would be how most Anarchists do not consider Anarcho-Capitalists to be Anarchists. This is because Anarchism is a bit more than just statelessness.

[Comrade_Kole]

Socialism is a bit more than just state ownership, in my opinion another defining feature is its bias for the proletariat.

A similar example would be how most Anarchists do not consider Anarcho-Capitalists to be Anarchists. This is because Anarchism is a bit more than just statelessness.

Interesting. Explain further.

[Nolan]

That sounds a lot like Socialism to me (materials, factories, etc are State-owned). Can you tell me the difference?

I find it funny that a lot of neonazis don't know how the economy should be run.

Well in Fascism they're not state owned, they are still privately owned. Corporatism is really extremely heavily regulated capitalism, but only on some things. See my sig

And in Socialism they're not supposed to be controlled by the state, but under control of the workers. I suppose you can have a state-owned industry democratically run by the workers, and many of the former Socialist states did exactly that to some extent.

One vital thing you have to understand is that state control doesn't necessarily mean worker control.

Neo-Nazis are just fucktards. Ignore their rants about "Zog" and that bullshit. :)

[A.R.Amistad]

Something that I find quite ironic is that, if you think about it, all this anti-communist hysteria is fairly recent, or at least not as ingrained in Western society as people like to say. The Western nations like the US, when they were willing to recognize the USSR under Stalin as a legitimate state, they actually seemed pessimistically sympathetic. A lot of anti-leftists seemed to praise Stalin for his "Nationalist responsibility" and saw the new order as a more "acceptable" form of Bolshevism (though it wasn't even) because it didn't challenge the orders of other capitalist nations. It wasn't really until after WWII that the anti-communist hysteria that we know really know today existed. Honestly, i think people really exaggerate just how anti-communist people are. I on't think anybody could find a western University that didn't have a few communist teachers, and of course just about every social movement we know, communists were somehow pretty involved. Really, people are just scared of the next "evil thing" they think that is lurking outside of their country. I just question how much the masses of people really "despise" communism as much as they did in the later half of the Twentieth century.

[Nolan]

Something that I find quite ironic is that, if you think about it, all this anti-communist hysteria is fairly recent, or at least not as ingrained in Western society as people like to say. The Western nations like the US, when they were willing to recognize the USSR under Stalin as a legitimate state, they actually seemed pessimistically sympathetic. A lot of anti-leftists seemed to praise Stalin for his "Nationalist responsibility" and saw the new order as a more "acceptable" form of Bolshevism (though it wasn't even) because it didn't challenge the orders of other capitalist nations. It wasn't really until after WWII that the anti-communist hysteria that we know really know today existed. Honestly, i think people really exaggerate just how anti-communist people are. I on't think anybody could find a western University that didn't have a few communist teachers, and of course just about every social movement we know, communists were somehow pretty involved. Really, people are just scared of the next "evil thing" they think that is lurking outside of their country. I just question how much the masses of people really "despise" communism as much as they did in the later half of the Twentieth century.

Oh no, there was a first Red Scare you know. It really goes all the way back to before Sacco and Vanzetti.

[ArrowLance]

Interesting. Explain further.

Well, definitions can be a bit subjective and also change over time. As the movement progresses, it defines its 'ism' past what it may originally have meant. This is can be evidenced by the definition of Communism. Since communism has been associated with states like the USSR, the DPRK, and China its meaning is stretched past the original meaning it had.

This causes a lot of trouble for two reasons. The bourgeois lies about these countries and their activities are incorporated into the definition. While some communists would like to disown those projects, this 'popular' definition will still follow them around, no matter how much they say nay. For communists like myself who do not disown those projects, but do not agree with the bourgeois interpretations and history around them, we have a similar problem.

So really it comes down to how you want to define the word yourself, and reaching some sort of agreement is best. On this forum anarchism is usually not meant to include those of the capitalist variety, although if you go elsewhere that could be different.

So when the nazi's used the term socialist to describe them selves was it an accurate description? It depends on who you are talking to and how you agree to define socialist.

In the end, these labels are only an aid (or a serious obstacle!). What really matters is the ideas you are trying to convey.

[ArrowLance]

Something that I find quite ironic is that, if you think about it, all this anti-communist hysteria is fairly recent, or at least not as ingrained in Western society as people like to say. The Western nations like the US, when they were willing to recognize the USSR under Stalin as a legitimate state, they actually seemed pessimistically sympathetic. A lot of anti-leftists seemed to praise Stalin for his "Nationalist responsibility" and saw the new order as a more "acceptable" form of Bolshevism (though it wasn't even) because it didn't challenge the orders of other capitalist nations. It wasn't really until after WWII that the anti-communist hysteria that we know really know today existed. Honestly, i think people really exaggerate just how anti-communist people are. I on't think anybody could find a western University that didn't have a few communist teachers, and of course just about every social movement we know, communists were somehow pretty involved. Really, people are just scared of the next "evil thing" they think that is lurking outside of their country. I just question how much the masses of people really "despise" communism as much as they did in the later half of the Twentieth century.

Anti-Communist propaganda is extremely ingrained into, at least American, society. You can't bring up the topic without someone giving the 'in theory/in practice' or 'human nature' lines.

Or even the 'It's only killed xxxxxxxxxxx(insanely unreasonable number) amount of people, sure we should give it another chance!' witticism.

[Comrade_Kole]

Well in Fascism they're not state owned, they are still privately owned. Corporatism is really extremely heavily regulated capitalism, but only on some things. See my sig

And in Socialism they're not supposed to be controlled by the state, but under control of the workers. I suppose you can have a state-owned industry democratically run by the workers, and many of the former Socialist states did exactly that to some extent.

One vital thing you have to understand is that state control doesn't necessarily mean worker control.

Neo-Nazis are just fucktards. Ignore their rants about "Zog" and that bullshit. :)

What I've heard about fascism (specifically National Socialism) is that a person is paid and promoted according to his/her contribution to the state.

Also, although I don't believe in "zog," I have always wondered about the media filtering and the unconditional support that America gives Israel. How does this help the capitalists?

[Comrade_Kole]

Well, definitions can be a bit subjective and also change over time. As the movement progresses, it defines its 'ism' past what it may originally have meant. This is can be evidenced by the definition of Communism. Since communism has been associated with states like the USSR, the DPRK, and China its meaning is stretched past the original meaning it had.

This causes a lot of trouble for two reasons. The bourgeois lies about these countries and their activities are incorporated into the definition. While some communists would like to disown those projects, this 'popular' definition will still follow them around, no matter how much they say nay. For communists like myself who do not disown those projects, but do not agree with the bourgeois interpretations and history around them, we have a similar problem.

So really it comes down to how you want to define the word yourself, and reaching some sort of agreement is best. On this forum anarchism is usually not meant to include those of the capitalist variety, although if you go elsewhere that could be different.

So when the nazi's used the term socialist to describe them selves was it an accurate description? It depends on who you are talking to and how you agree to define socialist.

In the end, these labels are only an aid (or a serious obstacle!). What really matters is the ideas you are trying to convey.

What is your definition of Socialism?

[ArrowLance]

What is your definition of Socialism?

Simply the transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Usually involving strong state policies for the equipment of the proletariat with revolutionary education and the disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie through the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Comrade_Kole]

Simply the transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Usually involving strong state policies for the equipment of the proletariat with revolutionary education and the disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie through the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Would that be through a democracy, a totalitarianism, or somewhere in between?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

What I've heard about fascism (specifically National Socialism) is that a person is paid and promoted according to his/her contribution to the state.

Also, although I don't believe in "zog," I have always wondered about the media filtering and the unconditional support that America gives Israel. How does this help the capitalists?
Israel is one of our allies, they have been for years, and they're our closest allies in the Middle East. It's the U.S. trying to balance power in the Middle East with a small but militarily powerful nation.

[ArrowLance]

Would that be through a democracy, a totalitarianism, or somewhere in between?
In whatever manner, provided it is the proletarian interests in control, that is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

[Comrade_Kole]

Israel is one of our allies, they have been for years, and they're our closest allies in the Middle East. It's the U.S. trying to balance power in the Middle East with a small but militarily powerful nation.

www DOT adl DOT org/israel/uss DOT asp

Doesn't sound much like an ally.

[Comrade_Kole]

In whatever manner, provided it is the proletarian interests in control, that is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

Which one do you think would be a better definition of such?

[Left-Reasoning]

What is your definition of Socialism?

"Before Marxists established a hegemony over definitions of "socialism, "the term socialism was a broad concept." Tucker (as well as most of the writers and readers in Liberty) understood "socialism" to refer to any of various theories and demands aimed to solve "the labor problem" through radical changes in the capitalist economy; descriptions of the problem, explanations of it causes, and proposed solutions (e.g., abolition of private property, cooperatives, state-ownership, etc.) varied among "socialist" philosophies." - Wikipedia

[Comrade_Kole]

"Before Marxists established a hegemony over definitions of "socialism, "the term socialism was a broad concept." Tucker (as well as most of the writers and readers in Liberty) understood "socialism" to refer to any of various theories and demands aimed to solve "the labor problem" through radical changes in the capitalist economy; descriptions of the problem, explanations of it causes, and proposed solutions (e.g., abolition of private property, cooperatives, state-ownership, etc.) varied among "socialist" philosophies." - Wikipedia

By that definition, fascism is socialism.

[Leaf]

I'm very much a learner too, so people, correct me if I am wrong. Sometimes I think fellow beginners can more easily help other beginners since we have similar misconceptions etc.

Anyway I would say that the the dictatorship of the proletariat is closer to democracy than facism (if this is what you are asking) since the majority, the workers (or proletariat) are the empowered class who make decisions about production and society while a minority are oppressed (the bougeosie).
This is the opposite to capitalism in which the tiny minority - the bougeosie (who live by owning the tools of production and exploiting workers) make the decisions in society, since the government serves this class's interests eg allows companies to basically do what they want, even it harms the environment or workers. In capitalism, production of goods and services occurs, not to meet humanity's need but for the sole goal of making profit.

Also, in my opinion a common misconception about communism is that countries such as Russia and China were, at one point, communist countries. Ask yourself, were these countries statelesss and classless? the answer is no. Many commuists consider the phrase 'communist nation' to be an oxymoron, or an impossibility since commuism must be international.

[ArrowLance]

Also, in my opinion a common misconception about communism is that countries such as Russia and China were, at one point, communist countries. Ask yourself, were these countries statelesss and classless? the answer is no. Many commuists consider the phrase 'communist nation' to be an oxymoron, or an impossibility since commuism must be international.

I'm a Communist and I'm not living in a stateless classless society. The question really is, what was the goals of these states, where were they headed.

[robbo203]

In whatever manner, provided it is the proletarian interests in control, that is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'


How exactly do you propose that the proletariat interests should be "in control" when the very definition of a proletariat is that of a class that is divorced from ownership of the means of prpoduction and is economically compelled therefore to sell its labour power to an owning class that enriches itself througthe exploitation of this proletarian class.

Has it occured to you that the whole idea of the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" is utter piffle and incoherent nonsense, a thoughtless aberration on the part of Marx which has led to oceans of ink and forests of paper having been ostensibly devoted to the thankless task of trying to square this particular circle.

It is simply inconceivable that an exploited class could become a ruling class and yet continue to remain exploited. In a word, remain proletarian

[Rjevan]

By that definition, fascism is socialism.
By that definition, you're the worst "undercover" propagandist I have ever seen. Really.
Since Herr Goebbels is gone, does anybody want to keep this discussion alive or can I trash it?

[Chambered Word]

To the OP, almost no matter where you live in the world you're going to hear alot of bullshit about communism, so you might as well make yourself prepared to defend your position if you decide you're a communist. This comes best through learning about politics, history, economics and the actual different strands of theory in socialist thought. If you want to know more about defeating their arguments, check out the 'High School Commies' thread in learning, whether you're in high school or not it's good for newer commies to learn how to defeat arguments they'll inevitably come up against. Still, I think it's best you learn more and form your own rebuttals before going and trying to defend yourself in a debate instead of parrotting arguments others make.


How exactly do you propose that the proletariat interests should be "in control" when the very definition of a proletariat is that of a class that is divorced from ownership of the means of prpoduction and is economically compelled therefore to sell its labour power to an owning class that enriches itself througthe exploitation of this proletarian class.

Has it occured to you that the whole idea of the so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" is utter piffle and incoherent nonsense, a thoughtless aberration on the part of Marx which has led to oceans of ink and forests of paper having been ostensibly devoted to the thankless task of trying to square this particular circle.

It is simply inconceivable that an exploited class could become a ruling class and yet continue to remain exploited. In a word, remain proletarian

Not this again?


very definition of a proletariat is that of a class that is divorced from ownership of the means of prpoduction and is economically compelled therefore to sell its labour power to an owning class that enriches itself througthe exploitation of this proletarian class.

If there's no bourgeoisie then who is exploiting them? Nobody. So they work but are not exploited. They still work, so they're the proletariat. :rolleyes:



Originally Posted by Comrade_Kole http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1653329#post1653329)
Would that be through a democracy, a totalitarianism, or somewhere in between?


In whatever manner, provided it is the proletarian interests in control, that is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

In theory, it's supposed to be democratically run by the workers for the workers. In practise however we can sometimes call certain dictatorships a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Although I'm not sure really how much democracy Cuba has (apparently it has all manner of elections and unions influencing politics, so please correct me if I'm wrong) but generally it's seen as a dictatorship under Fidel Castro. We could consider that a dictatorship of the proletariat (by the definition ArrowLance provided) because the proletariat's interests are in control, but we certainly don't aim to install a 'communist' dictatorship because then the dictator is not really accountable to the workers.

I should note there's a lot of disagreement about this. The way I understand it, there are hardcore Stalinists on one hand who either want a dictatorship or concur with 'socialist' dictatorships, anarchists and libertarian socialists and alot of Trotskyists on the other who completely detest any state not run by the workers (often calling them 'state capitalist', 'degenerated worker's states', 'deformed worker's states' etc) and some leftists who don't hold very libertarian or authoritarian views one way or another.

I hope that helps you to understand communism a bit (there's so much to learn though) and if I am wrong here I'd appreciate someone pulling me up on it. :)

[robbo203]

Not this again?


If there's no bourgeoisie then who is exploiting them? Nobody. So they work but are not exploited. They still work, so they're the proletariat. :rolleyes:



Tut tut. You really ought to brush up on your terminology. A proletariat is NOT just someone who "works". What a silly idea! Some capitalists work and very hard at that. Does that make them "proletarian"? Peasants labouring in a field work very hard. Are they proletarian too? of course not.

You need to understand that "proletariat" is a class category which specifies a particular relationship towards the measn of production. Proletarians, by defintion, are individuals who are compelled to sell their labouring abilities to employers because they lack ownership of the means of production upon which to ensure an independent existence. The proletarian or working class first emerged on a large scale during the industrial revolution, having been "freed" from any ties with the land through land enclosures mechanisation and the like. They are free in the sense that they do not possess property to live upon. This was a precondition for the growth of industrial capitalism - an available "free" proletariat

If, as you say, there are no bourgeoisie monopolising the means of production then there can be no proletariat deprived of these means of production and having to sell their labour power to the bourgeoise for this very reason. As Marx pointed out In Wage Labour and Capital "Capital therefore presupposes wage-labor; wage-labor presupposes capital."

If there is no proletariat it follows that there can be no "dictatorship of the proletariat" and to suggest that there can be is frankly absurd

[CELMX]

Tut tut. You really ought to brush up on your terminology. A proletariat is NOT just someone who "works". What a silly idea! Some capitalists work and very hard at that. Does that make them "proletarian"? Peasants labouring in a field work very hard. Are they proletarian too? of course not.


I have to disagree with the chunk that peasants labouring in the field aren't proletarians. By your definition, poletarians do not own the means of production. Peasants are members of the class constituted by small farmers and tenants, sharecroppers, and laborers on the land where they form the main labor force in agriculture. Meaning, they most probably have a boss that owns the peasants' tools.
Proletarians are not just urban...they can also be rural. This is why chairman mao thought that organizing the peasants would help with a revolution. Surely, he wouldn't organize a non-proletarian class.
By the way, most capitalists do not work "very hard," so I think that "some capitalists" should be changed to "a small minority of capitalists"

[robbo203]

I have to disagree with the chunk that peasants labouring in the field aren't proletarians. By your definition, poletarians do not own the means of production. Peasants are members of the class constituted by small farmers and tenants, sharecroppers, and laborers on the land where they form the main labor force in agriculture. Meaning, they most probably have a boss that owns the peasants' tools.
Proletarians are not just urban...they can also be rural. This is why chairman mao thought that organizing the peasants would help with a revolution. Surely, he wouldn't organize a non-proletarian class.
By the way, most capitalists do not work "very hard," so I think that "some capitalists" should be changed to "a small minority of capitalists"


It is not my definition that proletarians do not own means of production. It is the general, dare I say it, marxian definition. Peasants usually cannot be lumped in with the proletariat since they usually own, or have access to, some land (a means of production) albeit rather small which is (again usually) partly used for "self provisioning" and partly for production for the market. Agricultural labourers would indeed be proletarians but not necessarily peasants so you are not quite correct in suggesting that "Peasants are members of the class constituted by small farmers and tenants, sharecroppers, and laborers on the land"

I agree that most capitalists do not work very hard (except perhaps on the golf course) and you are probably correct in saying that only a small minority do so. However the point in my mentioning this at all was to question Comrade Lewis' rather silly assertion if people work "they're the proletariat". The proletariat is not defined by whether or not you work but by whether or not you are economically compelled to sell you labour power to the capitalist class or "bourgeoisie" to use his term.

It is in that sense that we can say that if there is no bourgeosie there cannot be a proletariat and therefore there cannot be a dictatorship of the proletariat. The whole idea is a complete nonsense which should be scrapped in toto. Karl must have been having an off day when he came up with this one.

[ComradeRed22'91]

i think people are forgetting some things...that the term 'communist' not only means the future world that Marx envisioned, but also a (derogatory?) word for Socialists and Marxists in general.


Anyways, one of my earliest memories were my parents and brother talking about Communist govenments and how, i am not kidding one bit here, "they tell you who you marry over there." That sounds like something i made up...but no.
Not even the USSR, hell, not even modern-day China tells you 'who you're going to marry."
The US essentially propagated that Communism in the USSR was a nazi-like sort of thing, like, essentially hell, very on par with a medieval witch hunt, although, and this statement entails a thousand arguments, things weren't nearly as bad as people thought they were and altbeit flawed, possibly more moral than the US.

[ComradeRed22'91]

But essentially, the Capitalist lies about communism are that it's killed 200 million people, things like they tell you what your job is going to be/ who you're going to marry, the waiting lists take forever, things of that sort.

[Chambered Word]

Tut tut. You really ought to brush up on your terminology. A proletariat is NOT just someone who "works". What a silly idea! Some capitalists work and very hard at that. Does that make them "proletarian"? Peasants labouring in a field work very hard. Are they proletarian too? of course not.

I had the idea that peasants who laboured in fields were proletarian, but nevermind.

Once again you get all hung up on the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' name. I'll just have to go back to calling it socialism. :rolleyes:


But essentially, the Capitalist lies about communism are that it's killed 200 million people, things like they tell you what your job is going to be/ who you're going to marry, the waiting lists take forever, things of that sort.

Apparently some people actually think you will have to share your toothbrush with others (these same people incidentally don't want to share their toothbrush with others as 'they don't want to get AIDS from gays'. Sometimes I wonder why we try to help humanity).

[A.R.Amistad]

Don't worry I'm no idiot I know about the Palmer Raids and Sacco and Vanzetti, but even though anti-communism was a part of that, I think it was mostly WWI histeria combined with anti-labor sentiments. The Cold War era style anticommunism is different. Similiar, but different.


Anti-Communist propaganda is extremely ingrained into, at least American, society. You can't bring up the topic without someone giving the 'in theory/in practice' or 'human nature' lines.

Or even the 'It's only killed xxxxxxxxxxx(insanely unreasonable number) amount of people, sure we should give it another chance!' witticism.

People say that about anything they don't know about, not just communism. Its just a lousy debate tactic.

[ArrowLance]

Don't worry I'm no idiot I know about the Palmer Raids and Sacco and Vanzetti, but even though anti-communism was a part of that, I think it was mostly WWI histeria combined with anti-labor sentiments. The Cold War era style anticommunism is different. Similiar, but different.



People say that about anything they don't know about, not just communism. Its just a lousy debate tactic.

Really? When I discuss other topics people don't give me lines like that. When I talk about chemistry in a rational way I don't get any responses from those not schooled in the least in chemistry along the lines of 'It's against Hydrogen's nature.'

[robbo203]

I had the idea that peasants who laboured in fields were proletarian, but nevermind.

Once again you get all hung up on the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' name. I'll just have to go back to calling it socialism. :rolleyes:
.

Well, no - peasants who labour in the field are not proletarian. Thats the whole point innit? Your contention was that someone who works is a proletarian. This is not so . Even some capitalists work as I said. "Proletarian" does not denote a particular kind of activity. It denotes instead a particular kind of relationship towards the means of production.

Its not the name or label "dictatorship of the proletariat" that worries me. Its the concept behind the label that is the problem. It is an illogical and incoherent concept and, like I said, Marx must have been having an off day when he came up with this concept