waltism a new school of thought /please read/

[docj12]

???

[Broletariat]

Sounds very egotistic, and the fact that you're keeping a State means it's not a classless society so I'll pass.

[docj12]

the state only there to make sure that there is no exploition of the working class

[Broletariat]

the state only there to make sure that there is no exploition of the working class
The fact that you still have to call them the "working class" is enough for me. There should be NO classes in a post-revolutionary world.

[docj12]

The only reson you would use this system in for the period of tiem between a world ruled by captist nations to true communism

this is only a transtional state it would soon give way as the private cpitalism slow became classless

in this way the world can slip into a classes socity

[Broletariat]

The only reson you would use this system in for the period of tiem between a world ruled by captist nations to true communism

this is only a transtional state it would soon give way as the private cpitalism slow became classless

in this way the world can slip into a classes socity
That sort of changes things for sure, you probably should've said that :P.

[lulks]

in waltism private citizen are able to hold private possessions but as for Capital such as land, a store , a factory , an office , a warehouse etc.... the citizen would be able to own
so waltism is a form of capitalism

[docj12]

no it a tration between a class filled society and a classless society

in waltism the workers are not exploited like in other systems (even some socialist systems)

it uses the equalty of socailism and the a semi free market to give the workers resean to work harder and sussed without having to exploit anyone else

it not capitlaism because the state sets the amount of free market

and the state is run by a demorcry by the workers and not a dictator

[Sam_b]

This has got to be a troll effort, surely?

[docj12]

no i am just trying to perfect the transtion between capitalist and classless society

[Q]

This has got to be a troll effort, surely?

Nah, s/he sounds like some kid bound to reinvent everything. I had that phase too when I was in a high school, good old days.

I for one welcome our new overlord!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_le7HKNt-Jos/SRTEo-DFl6I/AAAAAAAAA_0/AeZrBl4BYP8/s320/Walter.jpg

On a serious note: docj12, I suggest you start reading up on some basic stuff because your position is that of a left-reformist, not any kind of revolutionary. The Marxist Internet Archive (http://marxists.org/) has tons of stuff, the Communist Manifesto (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm) is a classic starter.

Feel free to ask.

[docj12]

i own a copy of the Communist maifesto and i am a reformist (only because i know that those who would be killed in a revolution would be working class , on both sides)

it may seem like a waterd down version of socialism (because it is) but i rather be called "some kid bound to reinvent everything" but i belive slow reform is better than nothing.

[Q]

i own a copy of the Communist maifesto and i am a reformist (only because i know that those who would be killed in a revolution would be working class , on both sides)

it may seem like a waterd down version of socialism (because it is) but i rather be called "some kid bound to reinvent everything" but i belive slow reform is better than nothing.

Yeah, ~150 years of reforms have brought us so much... Oh wait, it didn't. The welfare states in Europe have been under continuous attacks for the past 30 years in an effort to break the working class and discipline it to the whips of capital. As long as capitalism remains to exist reforms can be a temporary concession of the capitalists to the workers, nothing more.

On revolutions being violent and bloody, it speaks for itself that civil wars are not in our (that is working class) interests and when we can we will avoid them. The Russian October revolution for example had very little casualties. It was only after the pro-Tsarist whites, aided with 19 invading armies, started a civil war that the blood began to be spilled.

So, what is your stance? That we should better avoid revolutions, because capitalists will cause mayham in order to try and retain power? That's not much of an answer.

Also, be aware that you'll soon be restricted to the Opposing Ideologies forum, the rest of the forum is only open for revolutionaries.

[docj12]

you sir have a good point i now see the error in my way of thinking , but it still stands that this system is at least better then capitalism(then again what isn't)

[docj12]

one question if in you veiws revlution is the better answer what about socail revolution where communism or socialism is put into power by democrtic mean though a social or cultural revolution

and if that fails that's why ak's are automatic

[Q]

one question if in you veiws revlution is the better answer what about socail revolution where communism or socialism is put into power by democrtic mean though a social or cultural revolution

and if that fails that's why ak's are automatic

Could you rephrase? I don't understand the question.

[docj12]

to be fully honest i love communism (alot) but i just with it could be democrice like the socialist democracy as in bolivia which i lived under for 2 year and loved

what i mean are democric election in which commousim is voted in like in china where there is a republic

or like when evo morales (demctic socailist) was voted

thats what i mean im still marxist and i would be ok with out democracy it just i would love to have it

[Fietsketting]

one question; if in your view revolution is the better option. what about social revolution where communism or socialism is put into power by democratic means?

and if that fails that's why ak 47's are automatic


Fixed.

[docj12]

thanks i just a little sleepy from puling an all night'er

[Q]

Well, the question of democracy is two-sided I think: Communists are (or should be) fighting for the most radical democratic concessions, this in order to bring the working class to power as a conscious political project of seizing power from the capitalists. The other side however, and logically flowing from the first, is that we attack the lack of democracy in todays society, parliamentary democracy is no democracy at all but merely an illusion of it.

I hope that helps.

[Dimentio]

This is basically - apart from free food - what the social democrats tried to achieve in Sweden in the 1960's and 1970's.

[docj12]

ok that all i was after.

[docj12]

This is basically - apart from free food - what the social democrats tried to achieve in Sweden in the 1960's and 1970's.


the only reason i declared it a "new school of marxism" is that one factor but it is basicly socail democracy

[AK]

Comrades of all creeds and races please hear this Solomon voice in the darkness of ignorance. Though the great strides of history we now pay attention to the this modern epoch to a grand exchange of powers. In the past epochs power was derived for the subjugation of others ei capitalism and imperialism. Now with the use of technology persons of different localities are and can be in constant commutation. though these means propaganda and false clams can be made agreeable to the mass. With my own time living under socialism [Hold it right there. Socialism? In your past? *laughs*] i have come to the conclusion even though Marxism the subjugation and exploitation of persons becomes an concern. it is this reason and others that i have come to formulate a new school of though in Marxism, Waltism.
Marxist tendency No. 65465596265 and sixy-two-and-a-half seventy-eighths

Also, is this the ideology of dear leader Walt (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=26163)?



Part one Capital

In the eyes of this school of thought capitalism is not the enemy but instead it is persons in any for of government who would exploit anther human being. Examples of socialist socialist societies having inequality between the leader and the population have be noted in history. in waltism private citizen are able to hold private possessions but as for Capital such as land, a store , a factory , an office , a warehouse etc.... the citizen would be able to own BUT the amount of capital would be a decision by the state.

So exploitation by capitalists against workers doesn't exist? What the hell is this? It's interesting to see that you later go on to say about how the state should own the most capital but yet you see it as the primary exploiter :confused:

*skips over the rest because it's terrible*


what do my comrades think???
In all honesty: You're supposedly a Marxist. Didn't you ever read Marx? Apparently not, because this is not at all related to Marxism in the very least.

Don't re-invent the wheel.

[AK]

no i am just trying to perfect the transtion between capitalist and classless society
Perfect it? What, destroy class-based society by keeping capitalism?

[F9]

Closed