Need help with internet discussion

[SacRedMan]

Jesus never existed. He is fiction. Just like a workable communist society.


how do you know that? Come with an argument please.


Which one, Jesus or Communism.


communism.


First can you give me an example of working Communist system? Secondly, can you tell me how you can control the economy without controlling the people?


1.You have to awnser my question first
2. Don't come up saying "No, I will awnser if you awnser my questions first"
3. Those question you ask me are actually dumb, because they are explained in many ways



I was trying to make it simple for you, but never mind. I will answer them. The fairytale Communist utopia has never been acheived, because it is a denial of human nature. Self-interest, the propagation of your genes is a basic human instinct. Any system which denies this is doomed to failure. This is why every attempt to create a Communist state ends with dictatorship and death. Also, you can't control economics without controlling human interaction, the state is necessary.


You are saying that communism can't work because it's a system that will only work if everyone their nature changes. But what with the rise of Christianity, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution, globalism, the Russian Revolution and even the internet!! Those were radical changements of the nature of mankind. Before those events humans could only dream of a revolution, or a Renaissance,... But eventually they archieved it. You see my point?


None of those things are Communist, not even the Russian revolution. All of the societal systems you are talking about have a top down leadership. In the Communist utopia the "dictatorship of the proletariat" will magically fade away and there will be a stateless society where everyone will live in harmony, somehow. Communists refer to Stalin as a gangster because he does not represent the ideal. What Stalin actually represents is reality, which is the enemy of Communism.

I need help with this. Can someone give me an argument so I can copy/paste it and use it in that discussion? I really don't know with what I should respond.

[Tommy4ever]

Mention the Commune!

I find that when you bring up the Commune it often hits these sort of people a little off track as they are used to just arguing about the Soviet Union and Cuba and how they were either terrible or the only possible outcome of a revolution - depending on whether you see this sort as state capitalist or not.

The Paris Commune has the advantage of essentially being true socialism in action, that was ultra-democratic and only collapsed due to outside influences - ie a massive army of counter-revolutionaries.

[pranabjyoti]

Say this a**hole just one example. Have a time machine and get back to the time of Roman empire, before Christ. I am sure they would certainly say that society without slavery is impossible and for example they will show barbaric tribes outside the border of their empire. Basically, standing on today and saying a "communist(!)" society is impossible is nothing more than callous argument.

[SacRedMan]

He's back:


So you believe that personal freedom and individual rights should be curtailed, and that it is acceptable that the strong should be exploited by the weak?


You are liberal, I see? Communism allows individual freedom, because when the individu works and haves freedom, everyone will soon work also and will have their freedom. But what is freedom actually? And uhm... Where do I type that it is acceptable that the strong should be exploited by the weak?


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In truth I would be a lot more sympathetic to your cause, if it were not for all of the cultural Marxist lies. For example, the lies concerning men and women. Domestic violence is committed at about an equal rate by men and women, and when it is non reciprocal, women initiate it at a higher rate than men. But it is men that are demonised as an oppressor class. The same is true of child abuse. Men are demonised.

What now?

[CommunityBeliever]

The fairytale Communist utopia has never been acheived, because it is a denial of human nature.

Bring up the invention of money.

Money is a recent and radical invention, it hasn't always been with us so the idea that the accumulation of money is human nature is a myth. Before the invention of money there was the primitive communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism). We just want to get rid of money and live like people once did.


But it is men that are demonised as an oppressor class. The same is true of child abuse. Men are demonised.

Is this guy also a sexist?

[W1N5T0N]

You can say that Capitalism is It's own greatest enemy (apart from Communism, of course), because it relies on the constant consume, the generating of wealth, which at some point leads to economic crisis and collapse of the system. "bubbles", e.g. the housing bubble in america in the economic market are also an "enemy of reality", as they are not based on any realistic figure, and neither is the banking system where your 10 dollars that you put into the bank generate 90 fantasy dollars for the banks, and in case of a bank run money has to be printed, riding everbody deeper into the shit. Capitalism is doomed to fail because it's economic structure is built on growth. The society above that economy also relies on that growth, which is largely inspired by Oil. Take away the oil, take away the growth, and everything goes kaput. So, in truth, capitalism was already flawed a long time ago, and already Marx pointed that out - 2 centuries ago.

[La Peur Rouge]

Ask them to define "human nature". If it was "human nature" to be individualistic and greedy our species would have gone extinct long ago. The good old "it has never happened before means it can never happen in the future" doesn't really cut it. And saying men are demonized is ridiculous.


Originally Posted by discussion partner
So you believe that personal freedom and individual rights should be curtailed, and that it is acceptable that the strong should be exploited by the weak?

What he really means is that the personal "freedoms" and individual "rights" of the bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit 99% of the world's population are acceptable to him.

[Threetune]

The ‘ideas and feeling’ (ideals) that the human world should be more ‘equal’, ‘fair’ and ‘just’ in some way, is older than Leninist or even Marxist communism.
Evidence of it can be detected in ‘primitive’ societies before the advent of the written word. It’s echoed in all major religious teachings, political struggling, artistic literary and scientific cultural strivings simply because it is what most ordinary sane people instinctively want. It is demonstrably a facet of ‘human social nature’ as is the instinct for ‘individual survival’ against others.
‘Equality’ ‘fairness’ altruism, and ‘justice’ etc, have been the ‘high ideals’ of humanity down the ages.

Base greed and violence and acquisitiveness have historically always been regarded as backward and retrogressive in the long struggle for more ‘civilisation’ simply because they are easily recognised by the majority of sane people as ‘uncivilised’ and anti-social.

Now to modern communist business.

Originally Posted by discussion partner
“... The fairytale Communist utopia has never been acheived, because it is a denial of human nature.”
Communism has nothing to do with “utopia”, quite the opposite in fact, so why would we bother with that nonsense now? Tell the partner to talk to the religious people or the anarchists or other socialist idealists if he wants to talk about “utopia”, better still read Engels http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htmon

“Self-interest, the propagation of your genes is a basic human instinct. Any system which denies this is doomed to failure.”
So you are against society then? The chances of any ‘individual’ human gene surviving on this planet without first a partner and then a society to sustain it, are slim, to say the least. And what voluntary partner or society would instinctively want to propagate your particular depressive genes anyway?

This is why every attempt to create a Communist state ends with dictatorship and death. Also, you can't control economics without controlling human interaction, the state is necessary.”

Ab-so–fucking-lutly!!! We want a workers dictatorship that will pin down the individualist, idealist, and utopian, backwardness that is rotten capitalist culture and dumb thinking, until it’s gone forever. (Have you seen the degenerate sperm bank of Nazi shit in Russia since the counter-revolution?) Individual genes? Give us a break. Not even an individualist amoeba would want any of them for presents? We just hope you lot keep it in your Kleenex you sad cynical twats.

Originally Posted by discussion partner
“None of those things are Communist, not even the Russian revolution. All of the societal systems you are talking about have a top down leadership.”


We communists work hard to that understanding. We want our proletarian dictatorship, and nothing else will do. All this rightist/ leftist/ liberal / anarchist shit talking about not having leadership against the imperialists because it is ‘top down’, is reactionary “idealist” childish rubbish. Grow up and start taking responsible leadership in your world so that all workers will be the dictatorship of the planet.
Make these twats respond to our more intelligent rational agenda = workers power by proletarian dictatorship as the first step to communism.

[RebelDog]

Which one, Jesus or Communism.

If I wanted wine, it would be Jesus. If I wanted an end to this global misery, then its libertarian communism every time.

[Ballyfornia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g That there goes over human nature argument a good bit.

Mention the anarchist regions in Catalan and areas of Spain. You may want to ask him how could any of these Countries (Cuba, Russia) could have obtained "proper" socialism with constant threat of war and economic embargoes.

[SacRedMan]

He replied:


You're right, but that was after the gold standard was abolished and our currencies became "fiat". You can't print more gold. "as they are not based on any realistic figure", are you talking about domestic violence and child abuse?

[Threetune]

He replied:

sounds like a time waster to me.

[ckaihatsu]

I need help with this. Can someone give me an argument so I can copy/paste it and use it in that discussion? I really don't know with what I should respond.




First can you give me an example of working Communist system?


Unfortunately there was too much competition on the world scale among the major powers during the 20th century for any given country to tend to the social (political) development required for a full transition away from world capitalism to world communism. As long as turmoil exists at the global level without enough of the world's population building their own political alternative to it -- instead of joining in nationalistic world wars -- the conditions will not exist for the full development of a viable alternative to capitalism.





Secondly, can you tell me how you can control the economy without controlling the people?


Yes, it would have to be with some form of economic democracy, wherein there is mass democratic control over how value is determined, as well as workers' direct decision-making over their own labor power and its products.

(Also see the visual conceptualizations attached below.)





I was trying to make it simple for you, but never mind. I will answer them. The fairytale Communist utopia has never been acheived, because it is a denial of human nature. Self-interest, the propagation of your genes is a basic human instinct. Any system which denies this is doomed to failure. This is why every attempt to create a Communist state ends with dictatorship and death. Also, you can't control economics without controlling human interaction, the state is necessary.




None of those things are Communist, not even the Russian revolution. All of the societal systems you are talking about have a top down leadership. In the Communist utopia the "dictatorship of the proletariat" will magically fade away and there will be a stateless society where everyone will live in harmony, somehow. Communists refer to Stalin as a gangster because he does not represent the ideal. What Stalin actually represents is reality, which is the enemy of Communism.


There is a common misconception that a collectivized economy / society would inherently suppress personal ambition and individuality, including one's possible desire to have a family, propagate one's familial lineage, etc.

What is far more of a determining factor here is whether or not a given society is capable of producing a *surplus* or not -- is its productivity -- as in manufacturing and economics -- and social (political) organization good enough to provide *abundance*, at contemporary standards of living, for its populace on an equitable basis -- ?

If it *can't* then we have to look at where the bottleneck is -- is it due to lack of basic "physical" productivity, as in not enough agriculture, not enough industrial manufacturing, consumer tools and conveniences -- ? Is it due to resource-sapping state warfare against competing nation-states? Is it because of a lack of effective social organization to coordinate everything smoothly? Obviously history shows us numerous examples of *all* of these deleterious societal conditions, any one of which is enough to *prevent* an otherwise possible surplus of production from being used according to function.

The argument made here is that the only possible alternative to the non-conscious, hands-off functioning of capital markets for social (economic) organization is that of the state. There *is* an alternative to this simplistic Coke-or-Pepsi two-organization-only assertion -- and that is the liberating self-activity of the world's workers themselves, acting unhindered to re-organize the planet's assets and resources to work in the interests of workers themselves.

Can ground-level, local human interactions give rise to forms of social organization that are sufficient -- and certainly superior to capitalism -- for healthy societal functioning? Many revolutionary leftists answer 'yes' to this, but I am not of this particular subset of revolutionary leftism. Workers *must* consciously organize broad-ranging, large-scale structures of liberated labor organization so as to *supersede* the current scales of organization afforded by corporate-type forms of (capital-based) organization. Without realizing vast efficiencies of scale for production and a system of standardizations for mass societal expectations a revolutionary movement *can* turn into a re-hash of the nightmare Stalinism that is so conveniently invoked against such revolutionary-minded efforts.


[8] communist economy diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/

[SacRedMan]

Should we like open a thread for people that need help with discussion and so on? Because I sure, and many others, will need it.

fighting for communism all day long ;)
http://gdpit.com/avatars_pictures/animated/gdpit_com_96762789_502.gif

[ckaihatsu]

Should we like open a thread for people that need help with discussion and so on? Because I sure, and many others, will need it.


I'll interpret that to be an implicit "thank you".... Yes, this is a good idea, and I'll be glad to participate as I can.