Should communism be forced on people?

[Pilkington]

Should communism be :

a) forced on everyone?

b) an option for those who knowingly wish to participate in that type of society?

[AnonymousOne]

Should communism be :

a) forced on everyone?

b) an option for those who knowingly wish to participate in that type of society?

We're not forcing communism on people, we're liberating everyone from wage slavery.

You may as well ask if it's okay to allow other people to participate in a feudalist society where women have no rights. Wage slavery is not okay.

[Pilkington]

We're not forcing communism on people, we're liberating everyone from wage slavery.

You may as well ask if it's okay to allow other people to participate in a feudalist society where women have no rights. Wage slavery is not okay.

I'm asking because obviously not everyone agrees with communism. Not everyone would think that you are liberating them from anything, regardless of what you yourself think. Do you think it should be mandatory for all, if so why?

[scarletghoul]

If you think the correctness of a political idea is relative to people agreeing with it, or if you think that we shouldn't enforce ideas we know to be correct onto people who disagree with us, then you are nothing but a gutless liberal.

[Desperado]

It's an empty question, because you can't. Communism will only occur through the willing action of the masses*. Either the working class emancipates itself or it is not emancipated.

*(obviously it's forced on the bourgeoisie)

[ProletarianResurrection]

Should communism be :

a) forced on everyone?

b) an option for those who knowingly wish to participate in that type of society?

Capitalism is forced on everyone.

Capitalism cant exist without state and media/idealogical support.

Communism is about removing removing both state intimidation and brainwashing so that people can simply be people.

[CommunityBeliever]

We will force it on the bourgeoisie mother-fuckers!

Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution.

[Pilkington]

If you think the correctness of a political idea is relative to people agreeing with it, or if you think that we shouldn't enforce ideas we know to be correct onto people who disagree with us, then you are nothing but a gutless liberal.

The problem with that way of thinking is that a lot of people believe they are right with their ideas about how society should be run. Therefore if you believe you should enforce your own ideas you must be prepared to fight an uphill struggle pretty much forever.

[Pilkington]

We will force it on the bourgeoisie mother-fuckers!

Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution.

Seriously how are you going to do that?

[Desperado]

If you think the correctness of a political idea is relative to people agreeing with it, or if you think that we shouldn't enforce ideas we know to be correct onto people who disagree with us, then you are nothing but a gutless liberal.

"Liberal" in its widest sense (not economics, but social - to which your post is concerned) is not relativism. It's a recognition that stopping somebody from doing something bad can be worse than the bad thing in the first place.

[Dr Mindbender]

Should communism be :

a) forced on everyone?

Why should capitalism be forced on everyone?

For those that claim that alternatives to capitalism already exist in China, North Korea or Cuba they have their heads buried in contemporary dogma and are deluded.

Moreover, a revolution by its very nature is democracy. It requires the will of the majority to function in its absolute sense. Not the will of the majority of the electoral turn-out.



b) an option for those who knowingly wish to participate in that type of society?
Let them take their type of society to Antarctica, ala Atlas Shrugged. See how they get on.

[scarletghoul]

The problem with that way of thinking is that a lot of people believe they are right with their ideas about how society should be run. Therefore if you believe you should enforce your own ideas you must be prepared to fight an uphill struggle pretty much forever.
So uhh what are you suggesting as an alternative, just sit back and go "yeah well this is just our opinion, you all do what you want" and let capitalism carry on fucking over the world ?

You will never win over 100% of the population to a political idea (certainly not under a system that is completely opposed to it). To be an active revolutionary communist you need to have a firm conviction that our idea is the correct one and you need to have the balls to uphold it as such.

[Desperado]

The problem with that way of thinking is that a lot of people believe they are right with their ideas about how society should be run. Therefore if you believe you should enforce your own ideas you must be prepared to fight an uphill struggle pretty much forever.

Yes. But all communists openly believe that the working class will come to their point of view, and that this is when revolution occurs (of course, it's argued daily on these forums that certain historical "communists" didn't truly subscribe to this view, but all (save Blanquists) claim to). The enforcing is hence only on a minority - the exploiters, and is in favour of the majority - the exploited. We spread our word amongst the workers but we'll smash the capitalists when we need. And this enforcement is entirely legitimate - because we are not a level field of equals between capitalists and workers. Slaves enforce their emancipation onto their masters, because otherwise their masters are enforcing their oppression onto their slaves.

[Pilkington]

So uhh what are you suggesting as an alternative, just sit back and go "yeah well this is just our opinion, you all do what you want" and let capitalism carry on fucking over the world ?

You will never win over 100% of the population to a political idea (certainly not under a system that is completely opposed to it). To be an active revolutionary communist you need to have a firm conviction that our idea is the correct one and you need to have the balls to uphold it as such.

Yeah but as I say you're going to have the problem of having to keep forcing it forever, because not everyone would want to live in a communist system. Look at how fiercely some people are willing to fight for their way of life, that's what you would have on your hands forever. That would take a lot of energy and resources and time to deal with. How would you handle that?

[Pilkington]

Yes. But all communists openly believe that the working class will come to their point of view, and that this is when revolution occurs (of course, it's argued daily on these forums that certain historical "communists" didn't truly subscribe to this view, but all (save Blanquists) claim to). The enforcing is hence only on a minority - the exploiters, and is in favour of the majority - the exploited. We spread our word amongst the workers but we'll smash the capitalists when we need. And this enforcement is entirely legitimate - because we are not a level field of equals between capitalists and workers. Slaves enforce their emancipation onto their masters, because otherwise their masters are enforcing their oppression onto their slaves.

I really can't see any sign at all of any of that occurring. Do you think it will happen in your lifetime? I don't think it will happen at all for the simple fact that although you may hope to have everyone agree with you, there are countless others with countless other ideas about society who have precisely the same idea. You'll be at loggerheads with all of those people and their descendents forever, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Your wishful thinking is not realistic.

[Dr Mindbender]

I really can't see any sign at all of any of that occurring. Do you think it will happen in your lifetime? I don't think it will happen at all for the simple fact that although you may hope to have everyone agree with you, there are countless others with countless other ideas about society who have precisely the same idea. You'll be at loggerheads with all of those people and their descendents forever, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Your wishful thinking is not realistic.

If revolutionary thinkers had succumbed to the constraints of ad populum sentiment in the past, we would never have got over feudalism, slavery or voting booths being off limits to women.

It is these proponents of unrealistic ambitions you have to thank for the few freedoms you take for granted today.

The reason we move forward as a species is because of continued organised resistance to the status quo.

[#FF0000]

Depends on what "people" you're talking about. Communism is about the workers liberating themselves, so er, in that regard, no you really can't force it on people

[scarletghoul]

Yeah but as I say you're going to have the problem of having to keep forcing it forever, because not everyone would want to live in a communist system. Look at how fiercely some people are willing to fight for their way of life, that's what you would have on your hands forever. That would take a lot of energy and resources and time to deal with. How would you handle that?
* resists urge to post gulag picture *

As socialism sets in and develops the proletariat becomes more conscious of itself and the ideological/cultural influences of the reactionary classes will fade away. Yes, there will be intense class struggle against forces of bourgeois ideology etc even during socialism (ie, the cultural revolution in china), and there will be class struggle as long as classes (and their ideological repercussions) exist. This struggle will cease, along with the state (which is nothing but the most powerful weapon of class struggle, and that includes ideological as well as military and economic struggle), the moment social class disappears.

In other words, the ideological fight, the affirmation of communism as the correct way of human liberation, is a part of the class struggle. and we must be prepared to fight the bourgeoisie on all fronts: military, ideological, political, economic, etc. Unfortunately some working class people will side with them ideologically just as there were workers in the White Army, but that doesnt make it any less of a class war, and one which we must fight until the end

[Pilkington]

If revolutionary thinkers had succumbed to the constraints of ad populum sentiment in the past, we would never have got over feudalism, slavery or voting booths being off limits to women.

The reason we move forward as a species is because of continued organised resistance to the status quo.

That's a nice sentiment but there are 6 or 7 billion people on earth, and as long as humanity is around there will always be huge swathes of people with one idea about how society should be, and huge swathes of people with another idea, and so on. Look around. Slavery never went away, it's still around and probably always will be. Look at how far technology has advanced but is everyone able to take advantage of it? My point is that the world is extremely diverse and always will be. Your ideas will never change that.

No matter what changes happen in the world, there will always be diversity. It's impossible for everyone in the world to live the same way, and that's due to many many factors, and not least because quite simply not everyone wants to live the same way. To not acknowledge this basic fact of life is to be unrealistic with one's expectations.

[scarletghoul]

That's a nice sentiment but there are 6 or 7 billion people on earth, and as long as humanity is around there will always be huge swathes of people with one idea about how society should be, and huge swathes of people with another idea, and so on. Look around. Slavery never went away, it's still around and probably always will be.
Wait are you saying that the abolitionists shouldnt have enforced their ideas on people who disagreed with them ?

[Pilkington]

* resists urge to post gulag picture *

As socialism sets in and develops the proletariat becomes more conscious of itself and the ideological/cultural influences of the reactionary classes will fade away. Yes, there will be intense class struggle against forces of bourgeois ideology etc even during socialism (ie, the cultural revolution in china), and there will be class struggle as long as classes (and their ideological repercussions) exist. This struggle will cease, along with the state (which is nothing but the most powerful weapon of class struggle, and that includes ideological as well as military and economic struggle), the moment social class disappears.

In other words, the ideological fight, the affirmation of communism as the correct way of human liberation, is a part of the class struggle. and we must be prepared to fight the bourgeoisie on all fronts: military, ideological, political, economic, etc. Unfortunately some working class people will side with them ideologically just as there were workers in the White Army, but that doesnt make it any less of a class war, and one which we must fight until the end

The majority of people do not beling in the group which you would want to fight. Most ordinary people don't agree with communism and instead have alternative ideas about how society should be run. Some of them would kill you in a second to make their point. The majority (that's billions of people) have no interest in communism. You're absolutely outnumbered.

[#FF0000]

The majority of people do not beling in the group which you would want to fight. Most ordinary people don't agree with communism and instead have alternative ideas about how society should be run. Some of them would kill you in a second to make their point. The majority (that's billions of people) have no interest in communism. You're absolutely outnumbered.

So wait, because our ideas are, at the moment, unpopular, we should abandon them?

And, as far as your diversity angle, for all the ideas people have, everyone on the planet lives under Capitalism. Every single person.

[Desperado]

I really can't see any sign at all of any of that occurring. Do you think it will happen in your lifetime? I don't think it will happen at all for the simple fact that although you may hope to have everyone agree with you, there are countless others with countless other ideas about society who have precisely the same idea. You'll be at loggerheads with all of those people and their descendents forever, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Your wishful thinking is not realistic.

Firstly, I don't see the complete abolition of rape as likely, but I still totally support it. You can be pessimistically enthusiastic for a cause, as most anti-war veterans and the like are. That it is unlikely does not make it wrong.

Secondly, despite the above, history (though quite generally a failure) gives great hope. At times of crisis the masses are and have been able to organise themselves and to fight for their own needs. Communism isn't complicated, and (though not always under the banner nor the name of communism (I doubt the emancipation will be very theoretical nor even ideological)) examples of it are more than evident in our greater past, and in our more recent one the movements for it even more so.

What you need to grasp is that communists do not view communism as simply an idea. It is the real movement for the emancipation of mankind. The class struggle is real and evident, the driving force of history, and communism is the ultimate resolution of this. This is what we mostly mean by "materialists". Society is not just a group of equals shouting ideas - it's a division of slaves and slavemasters. It's an evident fact that at times the slaves have struggled against their masters, and is not at all unrealistic that with time the slaves one day "agree" to the idea of breaking their chains and succeed.

[Desperado]

The majority of people do not beling in the group which you would want to fight.

I assume you mean "that would want to fight". But the point is we believe that capitalism will make them fight - it will come to the radical and sudden point, where (as in moments of history) the working class must fight for communism or loose even more of the very little which they have. It's not just a nice idea some intellectuals have about how to run things - it's in their interests, and it's by this that it will come about.

[Napoleon Winston]

I see socialism and libertarian capitalism more or less working hand in hand, with some factories controlled by the workers, some controlled in a normal capitalist style.
Most easily made things (such as bread, wine, food) will likely be run mostly through cooperatives, with mainly labor based factories being run by the workers, and more advanced/complicated industries being run in a capitalist style.

[Rafiq]

Is it ethical to force the absence of slavery in the 1800's?

[Pilkington]

So wait, because our ideas are, at the moment, unpopular, we should abandon them?

And, as far as your diversity angle, for all the ideas people have, everyone on the planet lives under Capitalism. Every single person.

I don't believe I said that at all. No, by all means, don't abandon your ideas if you don't want to. My point has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. What I'm saying is that if you want to force everyone to live under a communist system, it would be an impossible and impractical endeavour, for reasons mentioned in my previous posts. I would say exactly the same to anybody who wanted to force their ideas on everyone else, no matter what those ideas may be. It simply doesn't work.

[Pilkington]

Firstly, I don't see the complete abolition of rape as likely, but I still totally support it. You can be pessimistically enthusiastic for a cause, as most anti-war veterans and the like are. That it is unlikely does not make it wrong.

Secondly, despite the above, history (though quite generally a failure) gives great hope. At times of crisis the masses are and have been able to organise themselves and to fight for their own needs. Communism isn't complicated, and (though not always under the banner nor the name of communism (I doubt the emancipation will be very theoretical nor even ideological)) examples of it are more than evident in our greater past, and in our more recent one the movements for it even more so.

What you need to grasp is that communists do not view communism as simply an idea. It is the real movement for the emancipation of mankind. The class struggle is real and evident, the driving force of history, and communism is the ultimate resolution of this. This is what we mostly mean by "materialists". Society is not just a group of equals shouting ideas - it's a division of slaves and slavemasters. It's an evident fact that at times the slaves have struggled against their masters, and is not at all unrealistic that with time the slaves one day "agree" to the idea of breaking their chains and succeed.

The thing is, a lot of people don't agree with your views. Therefore it would be a pretty much impossible task to get them all to agree with you, and if you tried to force them, you would have constant conflict forever. You would never have a moment's peace.

[thesadmafioso]

It is not that people need to have communism forced on them, they need to be afforded the opportunity to be aware of and to act on their class interests. If we are to eliminate the thick veil of capitalistic cultural hegemony and the institutions which perpetuate it, we would see a massive surge in support for communistic movements. Without the deception of the ruling elite, there is nothing holding the working class back from its attainment of power.

Of course, it may need to be forced on some elements of the bourgeoisie so as to facilitate the liberation of the majority, as class war is not always without its difficulties.

[Pilkington]

It is not that people need to have communism forced on them, they need to be afforded the opportunity to be aware of and to act on their class interests. If we are to eliminate the thick veil of capitalistic cultural hegemony and the institutions which perpetuate it, we would see a massive surge in support for communistic movements. Without the deception of the ruling elite, there is nothing holding the working class back from its attainment of power.

Of course, it may need to be forced on some elements of the bourgeoisie so as to facilitate the liberation of the majority, as class war is not always without its difficulties.

The problem with that is that not everyone who would want something different would choose communism as an alternative. The result would be that you would still have massive diversity, and if you tried to force your way onto them, you would again have constant conflict forever.

For example, some people may become attracted to fascism. I notice that in this forum, it would be hard for a fascist to even a say, thus restricting dialogue, thus resticting the possibility of changing their minds in a peaceful manner, thus, again, creating conflict forever.

[Black Sheep]

Voluntary participation cannot be forced on people.

(Cause it's voluntary)

[thesadmafioso]

The problem with that is that not everyone who would want something different would choose communism as an alternative. The result would be that you would still have massive diversity, and if you tried to force your way onto them, you would again have constant conflict forever.

So long as the popular movement is present within the workers, a vanguard party would be able to seize upon that momentum and organize their efforts into a coherent force. The proletariat itself does not initially need to be in the possession of a thorough understanding of Marxist theory in order to arrive at the conclusion of communism, as much of that responsibility falls upon the workers party.

Though if by these remarks you are implying that they would outright reject these attempts at fostering class consciousness, then I would say that your comments conflict with a materialist conception of history and that your hypothesis is without any base.

[#FF0000]

I don't believe I said that at all. No, by all means, don't abandon your ideas if you don't want to. My point has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. What I'm saying is that if you want to force everyone to live under a communist system, it would be an impossible and impractical endeavour, for reasons mentioned in my previous posts. I would say exactly the same to anybody who wanted to force their ideas on everyone else, no matter what those ideas may be. It simply doesn't work.

Well then I agree -- it's impractical and completely antithetical to our ideas.

[Pilkington]

So long as the popular movement is present within the workers, a vanguard party would be able to seize upon that momentum and organize their efforts into a coherent force. The proletariat itself does not initially need to be in the possession of a thorough understanding of Marxist theory in order to arrive at the conclusion of communism, as much of that responsibility falls upon the workers party.

Though if by these remarks you are implying that they would outright reject these attempts at fostering class consciousness, then I would say that your comments conflict with a materialist conception of history and that your hypothesis is without any base.

Again you're disregarding the simple fact of life that there will always be diversity. At any given moment in time, there are a huge number of ideologies, and this is always subject to fluctuation as the generations go by. There will never ever be a time when everyone in the world wants to be a communist, or indeed anything else. The result of that for anyone who wishes to enforce communism, or indeed any other ideology or worldview, is again, constant conflict forever.

[Desperado]

The thing is, a lot of people don't agree with your views. Therefore it would be a pretty much impossible task to get them all to agree with you, and if you tried to force them, you would have constant conflict forever. You would never have a moment's peace.

You don't seem to understand, so I'll make this very simple. I wont make them "agree" - capitalism does and will. What you similarly fail to notice is that capitalism is "forced" on to everyone, and it is causing constant conflict. Lastly, who mentioned "all"? Capitalists wont agree, that's why we need revolution.

[Pilkington]

Well then I agree -- it's impractical and completely anti-ethical to our ideas.

Yes I think that's right. I think that for anybody who feels strongly enough about how a society should operate, the solution is for them to set up a society that is in keeping with their ideas, and invite anyone who wishes to live under such a system to join that society. The result of that would be :

* Those who want to live that way would get to do so.

* Others outside that society would be able to see how that society works, and have the opportunity to join or reject it based on having seen how it actually works.

* No conflict.

[Desperado]

Again you're disregarding the simple fact of life that there will always be diversity. At any given moment in time, there are a huge number of ideologies, and this is always subject to fluctuation as the generations go by. There will never ever be a time when everyone in the world wants to be a communist, or indeed anything else. The result of that for anyone who wishes to enforce communism, or indeed any other ideology or worldview, is again, constant conflict forever.

If this is your opinion, then either

a) You have some system in which this "diversity" is allowed

or

b) Your point is completely irrelevant, because it is the case with every system and ideology, and you basically believe that human civilisation is doomed to "constant conflict forever".

[Pilkington]

You don't seem to understand, so I'll make this very simple. I wont make them "agree" - capitalism does and will. What you similarly fail to notice is that capitalism is "forced" on to everyone, and it is causing constant conflict. Lastly, who mentioned "all"? Capitalists wont agree, that's why we need revolution.

I'm not talking about capitalsm. In fact I'm not even talking about communism. I'm talking about what happens when people try to push their ideas onto others.

[Pilkington]

If this is your opinion, then either

a) You have some system in which this "diversity" is allowed

or

b) Your point is completely irrelevant, because it is the case with every system and ideology, and you basically believe that human civilisation is doomed to "constant conflict forever".

No I'm not saying that civilization is doomed to conflict forever. It may be, it may not be, that's irrelevant. What I'm saying is what happens when you try to get everyone to go along with your ideas.

[thesadmafioso]

Again you're disregarding the simple fact of life that there will always be diversity. At any given moment in time, there are a huge number of ideologies, and this is always subject to fluctuation as the generations go by. There will never ever be a time when everyone in the world wants to be a communist, or indeed anything else. The result of that for anyone who wishes to enforce communism, or indeed any other ideology or worldview, is again, constant conflict forever.

You have erred significantly in equating communism to the multitudes of bourgeois political ideological. The vast array of ideological fluctuation to which you refer to is impotent; ideology which is designed by the bourgeoisie will never be able to fulfill the demands of the working class. When the hegemony of bourgeois culture is shattered, the proletariat will naturally gravitate towards communistic ideology as it is the only framework which provides them with the implements through which to institute their rule. Any illusion which implies or states otherwise will not be able to perpetuate itself indefinitely and will collapse when met with the full force of the organized proletariat, armed with the philosophical weaponry of Marxist thought.

[Desperado]

Yes I think that's right. I think that for anybody who feels strongly enough about how a society should operate, the solution is for them to set up a society that is in keeping with their ideas, and invite anyone who wishes to live under such a system to join that society. The result of that would be :

* Those who want to live that way would get to do so.

* Others outside that society would be able to see how that society works, and have the opportunity to join or reject it based on having seen how it actually works.

* No conflict.

Well wouldn't that be grand. But sadly the world is controlled by these things called governments, and the ruling class don't much like anyone spoiling their order of things and taking away their property.

[Pilkington]

You have erred significantly in equating communism to the multitudes of bourgeois political ideological. The vast array of ideological fluctuation to which you refer to is impotent; ideology which is designed by the bourgeoisie will never be able to fulfill the demands of the working class. When the hegemony of bourgeois culture is shattered, the proletariat will naturally gravitate towards communistic ideology as it is the only framework which provides them with the implements through which to institute their rule.

Well I don't know about that. I really doubt that the majority would naturally gravitate towards communism if the current system were to be done away with. The world is full of way too many different ideas other than communism for that to happen.

[Desperado]

No I'm not saying that civilization is doomed to conflict forever. It may be, it may not be, that's irrelevant. What I'm saying is what happens when you try to get everyone to go along with your ideas.

You said that societies that do not allow "diversity" are doomed to "conflict forever". You said that a communist society is one that is "enforcing" it's ideology and so does not allow diversity. You said that enforcement of any ideology will cause conflict forever. You are yet to provide an example (real or theoretical) of a society in which an ideology is not "enforced". Hence, until you do, the implicit logical conclusion of your argument is that society is doomed to a Heraclitian conflict for the rest of time.

[thesadmafioso]

Well I don't know about that. I really doubt that the majority would naturally gravitate towards communism if the current system were to be done away with. The world is full of way too many different ideas other than communism for that to happen.

As I have previously stated, those ideas hold no place in this discussion for they are antiquated relics of the capitalistic status quo. They were born to circumstances and intents which are stand in contradiction to the aims of the proletariat and they will be treated in a manner which realizes that reality.

[Pilkington]

You said that societies that do not allow "diversity" are doomed to "conflict forever". You said that a communist society is one that is "enforcing" it's ideology and so does not allow diversity. You said that enforcement of any ideology will cause conflict forever. You are yet to provide an example (real or theoretical) of a society in which an ideology is not "enforced". Hence, until you do, the implicit logical conclusion of your argument is that society is doomed to a Heraclitian conflict for the rest of time.

Actually no, I didn't say any of that. What I did say however was that if you try to enforce your ideas on others, be prepared for conflict forever (or for as long as you continue to try and enforce your way of life on others).

[Pilkington]

As I have previously stated, those ideas hold no place in this discussion for they are antiquated relics of the capitalistic status quo. They were born to circumstances and intents which are stand in contradiction to the aims of the proletariat and they will be treated in a manner which realizes that reality.

Ok, at ease, Citizen Smith.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

The problem with that is that not everyone who would want something different would choose communism as an alternative. The result would be that you would still have massive diversity, and if you tried to force your way onto them, you would again have constant conflict forever.

For example, some people may become attracted to fascism. I notice that in this forum, it would be hard for a fascist to even a say, thus restricting dialogue, thus resticting the possibility of changing their minds in a peaceful manner, thus, again, creating conflict forever.

Yeah, it's a proper ballache mate. I really can't see the point you're trying to make or rather to what end you're attempting to make it, though. No, communism shouldnt be forced on everyone, it needs to be a democratic process and is likely to be a bottom-up process. Erm... Diversity of opinion will always exist, yeah, but then how is that different to how it is now? In the UK a government can be formed with around 35% of the popular vote. This is not even a majority of the population but... we deal with it, right? There are no bomb attacks on Downing Street because we realise this gets no-one anywhere. Yknow.... every last person in the UK is not a Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour supporter.

I think the ideal is that a desire for real equality will arise due to people's inherant empathy and change will be brought about by gradual reconstruction. It could take decades, centuries even, but I think the socialist/communist ideal has infinitely more legs than the fascist one, which requires strictly heirarchical leaders and lead rather than self-governing collectives.

Once this is acheived the majority will think to themselves "oooooooh - this is much nicer than before. Let's keep things like this. Lovely..."
or words to that effect.

[Pilkington]

Yeah, it's a proper ballache mate. I really can't see the point you're trying to make or rather to what end you're attempting to make it, though. No, communism shouldnt be forced on everyone, it needs to be a democratic process and is likely to be a bottom-up process. Erm... Diversity of opinion will always exist, yeah, but then how is that different to how it is now? In the UK a government can be formed with around 35% of the popular vote. This is not even a majority of the population but... we deal with it, right? There are no bomb attacks on Downing Street because we realise this gets no-one anywhere. Yknow.... every last person in the UK is not a Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour supporter.

I think the ideal is that a desire for real equality will arise due to people's inherant empathy and change will be brought about by gradual reconstruction. It could take decades, centuries even, but I think the socialist/communist ideal has infinitely more legs than the fascist one, which requires strictly heirarchical leaders and lead rather than self-governing collectives.

Once this is acheived the majority will think to themselves "oooooooh - this is much nicer than before. Let's keep things like this. Lovely..."
or words to that effect.

I don't know though, I just don't think that would happen. Do you know how many ideologies there are out there? No, I think that if the current system comes to an end (and in fact I think it will, within our lifetimes certainly), communism is very unlikely to be the first choice for most people.

I don't agree with communism at all myself, and neither do billions of people. I personally think that what will most likely happen is that what will replace the current system will be something very different.

All of the isms that people talk about are based on their current beliefs about humanity, the world and the universe, and on their perception of possibility, their self identity, and many other things. No, communism is a far cry from what I believe will replace the current system. I don't even think that what will (in my view) come after the current system will be anything like what many people would even expect. I think everyone is going to be in for a huge shock.

[Desperado]

Actually no, I didn't say any of that.

You said every one of those things. This is just tedious now.


You said that societies that do not allow "diversity" are doomed to "conflict forever".


The result of that for anyone who wishes to enforce communism, or indeed any other ideology or worldview, is again, constant conflict forever.


You said that a communist society is one that is "enforcing" it's ideology and so does not allow diversity.


There will never ever be a time when everyone in the world wants to be a communist, or indeed anything else.


You said that enforcement of any ideology will cause conflict forever.


The result of that for anyone who wishes to enforce communism, or indeed any other ideology or worldview, is again, constant conflict forever.


You are yet to provide an example (real or theoretical) of a society in which an ideology is not "enforced".

(you haven't)


What I did say however was that if you try to enforce your ideas on others, be prepared for conflict forever (or for as long as you continue to try and enforce your way of life on others).

And how is any other society different to communism in that it doesn't "enforce" its own ideas in the way you have described? You are damning society, not communism.

All of this is besides the fact that your very premise is wrong - communists will not enforce communism - they believe that the massive majority of the working class (who are the massive majority in society today) will want it. Differing ideologies spring from class society - without this all major conflict will cease. Hence communism does not require enforcement - which is why communism is stateless. Any minor disagreements still present in a post-revolutionary society communists hope to minimise through free associations working by directly democratic and consensus methods.

[Pilkington]

You said every one of those things. This is just tedious now.















(you haven't)



And how is any other society different to "communism" in that it doesn't "enforce" its own ideas in the way you have described? You are damning society, not communism.

All of this is besides the fact that your very premise is wrong - communists will not enforce communism - they believe that the massive majority of the working class (who are the massive majority in society today) will want it. Differing ideologies spring from class society - without this all major conflict will cease. Any minor disagreements still present in a post-revolutionary society communists hope to minimise through free associations working by directly democratic and consensus methods.

Your quotes demonstrate that I didn't say any of what you have claimed I've said.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I don't know though, I just don't think that would happen. Do you know how many ideologies there are out there? No, I think that if the current system comes to an end (and in fact I think it will, within our lifetimes certainly), communism is very unlikely to be the first choice for most people.

I don't agree with communism at all myself, and neither do billions of people. I personally think that what will most likely happen is that what will replace the current system will be something very different.

All of the isms that people talk about are based on their current beliefs about humanity, the world and the universe, and on their perception of possibility, their self identity, and many other things. No, communism is a far cry from what I believe will replace the current system. I don't even think that what will (in my view) come after the current system will be anything like what many people would even expect. I think everyone is going to be in for a huge shock.


I don't think there will be a "Communist Revolution", or that the place the world eventually ends up will consider itself a "communist/socialist/anarchist" society but I think that, semantics aside, the human drive towards freedom and equality - an instinct proven by centuries of history - will be to all intents and purposes result in some kind of.... either chaos or egalitarian utopia.... I also think we're talking many years in the future, whatever happens in the meantime. Could go either way. I see:



I don't even think that what will (in my view) come after the current system will be anything like what many people would even expect. I think everyone is going to be in for a huge shock.

this point, even if the wording is slightly comical (I picture entire communities wandering about with expressions of surprise on their face: wide eyed, constantly puffing their cheeks out in bewilderment. Nothing will get done for that first two/three years. People just stagger about going "WHAAAAA?!"). I was arguing the toss with someone over the value of the Royal family the other week and the guy just couldnt imagine some kind of intermediary between the current UK system and the US system of government: it simply HAS to be one way or the other. Any attempt to reason (Me: "we dont have to have either.... all it takes is a little imagination and - hey presto - you have a republic without a president"). It's really down to someone with some intense political imagination to come up with some "new way".... could be anyone....

Get cracking, man!

[Desperado]

Your quotes demonstrate that I didn't say any of what you have claimed I've said.

Either you can't read or you're a troll.

[Pilkington]

I don't think there will be a "Communist Revolution", or that the place the world eventually ends up will consider itself a "communist/socialist/anarchist" society but I think that, semantics aside, the human drive towards freedom and equality - an instinct proven by centuries of history - will be to all intents and purposes result in some kind of.... either chaos or egalitarian utopia. Could go either way. I see:



this point. I was arguing the toss with someone over the value of the Royal family the other week and the guy just couldnt imagine some kind of intermediary between the current UK system and the US system of government: it simply HAS to be one way or the other. Any attempt to reason (Me: "we dont have to have either.... all it takes is a little imagination and - hey presto - you have a republic without a president"). It's really down to someone with some intense political imagination to come up with some "new way".... could be anyone....

Get cracking, man!

I certainly agree that people have a natural yearning for freedom. And I don't think the current system provides it. What I do believe is that everybody is being played against each other, and that communism and all the other isms are part of that game. Politics, religion, all of that stuff is designed to divide people and divert them from the fact that they're all being played. It's a puppet show. Unfortunately most people can't see that they're being played. People get into groups and fight against each other not having even the slightest clue that they're playing their role in something that they have no idea exists. You're all being played.

[Pilkington]

Either you can't read or you're a troll.

The alternative is that you have misunderstood what I said. And now that you have quoted what I actually said and put it next to your interpretation of what I said, everyone can see the chasm between the two. For anyone who would like to see this, it's on post 49 on this page.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I certainly agree that people have a natural yearning for freedom. And I don't think the current system provides it. What I do believe is that everybody is being played against each other, and that communism and all the other isms are part of that game. Politics, religion, all of that stuff is designed to divide people and divert them from the fact that they're all being played. It's a puppet show. Unfortunately most people can't see that they're being played. People get into groups and fight against each other not having even the slightest clue that they're playing their role in something that they have no idea exists. You're all being played.


Well, hold on.... I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that everyone of the left agrees with every last word Marx, Engles, Bakunin, Trotsky etc etc etc wrote... even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. It's not like were all sitting here believing that there is a rigidly defined system, ready-to-go. It will take work and time. My main draw towards "communism" (although I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist: an important distinction), to give the left its broadest possible definition, is more to do with the fundamental critique of capitalism and its sway towards an egalitarian society. I don't think there is a person here that doesnt have their own ideas on how a leftist utopia would work, but in order to create any kind of functioning society certain idealistic persuasions would have to be comprimised. This is true of any society, right wing or left wing.

Edit: I do feel I have to take exception to the condescending tone of your post. You've no right to presume on either my wisdom or my naivety, nor to your own intellectual superiority. Please refrain from such cheap shots.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I really can't see any sign at all of any of that occurring. Do you think it will happen in your lifetime? I don't think it will happen at all for the simple fact that although you may hope to have everyone agree with you, there are countless others with countless other ideas about society who have precisely the same idea. You'll be at loggerheads with all of those people and their descendents forever, no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Your wishful thinking is not realistic.

Pilkington drear, do you think that capitalism is working? Look around you-9% unemployment in the US, double digits in European countries, waves of suicides by peasants in India, a world of almost 7 billion people in which the "pundits" are seriously complaining about a demographic crisis, serious climactic instability...can you honestly say this system is working?

Capitalism is already imposed on people.If you piss off a retail sales manager, if you anger a boss, there's a very real real chance you may be facing homelessness and starvation. I can assure, this is no exaggeration, I've had friends in this situation and I've been close.

Marx defined socialism as the self emancipation of the working class. Socialism is a vision, a view of a society beyond the rule of capital.

Do we want to force our view on society? Yes, you had better fucking believe we do. We see it as a mater of survival.

Pilington, it is quite obvious you are a useless troll trying to bait leftists and you have no interest in learning. I don't mind at all, I enjoy writing and this gives me a chance to practice.

Lots of people have lots of ideas but not all these ideas are equal, not by a long shot.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The majority of people do not beling in the group which you would want to fight. Most ordinary people don't agree with communism and instead have alternative ideas about how society should be run. Some of them would kill you in a second to make their point. The majority (that's billions of people) have no interest in communism. You're absolutely outnumbered.

The majority of people in the world wish to have control over their lives. Ever hear of the Lincoln -Douglas debates? Abe Lincoln bitterly condemned "wage slavery". this reflected the way people then felt about the decline of the artisan tradition and the imposition of the hated wage slavery system. Back then it was considered humiliating to have to sell oneself as a commodity to a boss, today everyone takes it for granted and people are surprised there ever was an alternative to this.

But Pilkington, I imagine you are already "redesigning" yourself as a "brand" with a logo to go with it. Can you really say this system isn't in crisis? Where will you be when the system implodes? You really are clueless, aren't you?

BTW, welcome back, Hereward!

[Pilkington]

Well, hold on.... I think you're labouring under the misapprehension that everyone of the left agrees with every last word Marx, Engles, Bakunin, Trotsky etc etc etc wrote... even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. It's not like were all sitting here believing that there is a rigidly defined system, ready-to-go. It will take work and time. My main draw towards "communism" (although I consider myself an anarcho-syndicalist: an important distinction), to give the left its broadest possible definition, is more to do with the fundamental critique of capitalism and its sway towards an egalitarian society. I don't think there is a person here that doesnt have their own ideas on how a leftist utopia would work, but in order to create any kind of functioning society certain liberties ("liberties" here meaning idealistic persuasions) would have to be comprimised. This is true of any society, right wing or left wing.

I'm not making any specific comments on any of that. What I'm getting at is simply that all of these isms that people like to associate themselves with are all part of a wider game that is being played on everyone.

The fact is, I believe, that humanity has a very limited perception of what is possible, and by that I mean that we have no idea about who we are, the nature of the universe, and the wider things which have a bearing on every aspect of human experience. This is why ideas like communism, all the common religions, all the other political ideas flying about, they are all a distraction.

The current system (and I'm not talking about capitalism or anything like that - it goes way beyond that) is a game of chess. Everyone has their idea of how society should be but no one has any idea about who and what they are, and until they start to get an idea (which I believe will happen within a few years) they will keep going round in circles. Until you know who you really are, and what you really are, and why you're actually here, you will continue to be distracted by all of these ideologies, when the fact is that you're all being played for fools. You don't even know yourself. You have been manipulated for thousands of years to live in a system in which the choices presented before you are all that is. You've been taught to see yourself and the universe in a certain way. You have no idea of what is possible. You're living in the stone age as far as knowing anything at all is concerned.

The current system will end very soon but you will be shocked beyond belief at what is to follow.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I'm not making any specific comments on any of that. What I'm getting at is simply that all of these isms that people like to associate themselves with are all part of a wider game that is being played on everyone.

The fact is, I believe, that humanity has a very limited perception of what is possible, and by that I mean that we have no idea about who we are, the nature of the universe, and the wider things which have a bearing on every aspect of human experience. This is why ideas like communism, all the common religions, all the other political ideas flying about, they are all a distraction.

The current system (and I'm not talking about capitalism or anything like that - it goes way beyond that) is a game of chess. Everyone has their idea of how society should be but no one has any idea about who and what they are, and until they start to get an idea (which I believe will happen within a few years) they will keep going round in circles. Until you know who you really are, and what you really are, and why you're actually here, you will continue to be distracted by all of these ideologies, when the fact is that you're all being played for fools. You don't even know yourself. You have been manipulated for thousands of years to live in a system in which the choices presented before you are all that is. You've been taught to see yourself and the universe in a certain way. You have no idea of what is possible. You're living in the stone age as far as knowing anything at all is concerned.

The current system will end very soon but you will be shocked beyond belief at what is to follow.

You been reading Marcuse?

I think people realise the need for some kind of system - there are 7 billion people on this planet, something needs to be in place to make that work - rather than being hoodwinked into thinking there are only a certain set of rigidly defined systems. But the truly great theorists are few and far between. For the same reason there is only one Mozart, for example, or Bez.

Anyway Pilkington, what happened to ya, man?! Just this April gone your pure optimism was a thing of beauty:


Hi. I'm Pilkington. I'm a firm believer in equal rights, fairness, and each person getting what is due to them. I hate injustice and I believe that all problems have solutions. That's all for now.

Has a mere three months on here turned you into the weary cynic we see here today? :crying::crying::crying:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I may have spoken a bit overly harshly in my previous posts, that comes from what I feel a is a very real justified anger at our current system.

If you have another way, ummm...could you deign to share it with us? I hope you are not a 2012 person, I've read the Ken Carey books years ago and I've come to feel mnuch of that stuff is for self satisfied yuppies.

But if all we see are merely the shadows on the cave wall, could you enlighten us?

[Pilkington]

You been reading Marcuse?

I think people realise the need for some kind of system - there are 7 billion people on this planet, something needs to be in place to make that work - rather than being hoodwinked into thinking there are only a certain set of rigidly defined systems. But the truly great theorists are few and far between. For the same reason there is only one Mozart, for example, or Bez.

Anyway Pilkington, what happened to ya, man?! Just this April gone your pure optimism was a thing of beauty:



Has a mere three months on here turned you into the weary cynic we see here today? :crying::crying::crying:

I don't know who Marcuse is.

My opening post was extremely corny and I regret it beyond what I can describe. Disregard it.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I don't know who Marcuse is.

Me neither. I think he was a footballer or something.


My opening post was extremely corny and I regret it beyond what I can describe. Disregard it.


awwww :(... it warmed the cockles of my heart....

c'mon - give us a cuddle! :wub:

[Os Cangaceiros]

What people believe in regards to culture, economics etc. often changes. It doesn't remain the same forever. The flag that they're willing to die for today may lose a good deal of it's power a century from now.

Our project doesn't depend on massive missionary work on our part. My opinion has always been that we play a very small part in it's (possible) success. The ascendency or non-ascendency of communism won't depend on 100% agreement from the masses, just as capitalism didn't. Hell, a LOT of people disagreed with capitalism and the way things were being run, all the way from the Chartist movement to the present era. I don't think that there will ever be an "end of history" or an "end of ideology", but class struggle is eternal, as long as there are classes. I think that's what's important.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The fact is, I believe, that humanity has a very limited perception of what is possible, and by that I mean that we have no idea about who we are, the nature of the universe, and the wider things which have a bearing on every aspect of human experience. This is why ideas like communism, all the common religions, all the other political ideas flying about, they are all a distraction.

The current system (and I'm not talking about capitalism or anything like that - it goes way beyond that) is a game of chess. Everyone has their e living in the stone age as far as knowing anything at all is concerned.

The current system will end very soon but you will be shocked beyond belief at what is to follow.

Plikington me lad, please explain.

[Pilkington]

I may have spoken a bit overly harshly in my previous posts, that comes from what I feel a is a very real justified anger at our current system.

If you have another way, ummm...could you deign to share it with us? I hope you are not a 2012 person, I've read the Ken Carey books years ago and I've come to feel mnuch of that stuff is for self satisfied yuppies.

But if all we see are merely the shadows on the cave wall, could you enlighten us?

Well, me lass, I'm not a 2012 person in the sense that I don't believe any major changes are going to happen necessarily in 2012. And I'm too poor to be a yuppie. But I am a conspiracy "theorist".

I do believe that quite shortly a lot of people are going to have realizations about who they really are and I think that has already started, and then what will follow will be a natural result of that. What will follow? I don't know because I haven't had a major realization.

What I do believe is that opinions are formed on the basis of what we believe to be reality, and what we believe is possible, and how we see ourselves. I think that soon a lot of people are going to see themselves and the universe in very different terms to what they've been "educated" to see and think. They will wake up to the fact that all the systems which are talked about currently are a distraction. We live in a prison but we can't see it. People see a range of choices which have been designed and presented before them, and they squabble over which one is the right one. They're all wrong.

The good intentions of the majority of people have been manipulated and channelled into either one ism or another. Communists believe they're right, other ists believe they're right, and then they fight. It's the same with religion. It's a joke that people have become so infantilised into playing such a petty game with each other. The way to end it is simple. Walk away. Don't fight, or run, just walk. Turn around and do something else. It's no good asking me what the alternative is when the alternative is a natural symptom of firstly realising who we are. When that happens, the rest will follow easily and naturally. It's not a case of defining how things will be because at present we are all in the dark about the fundamental issues and we currently don't even have the maturity to understand what will follow. We don't even know who we are, we have no chance yet of understanding anything else.

[ComradePonov]

Communism must be desired by the masses.

Marx warned against communistic revolutions which are carried out by single individuals. Such revolutions will often always turn into an authoritarian, materialistic, decayed state.


Unless the masses want and desire communism, it should not be "forced" upon anyone. If it is, then it is guaranteed to fail as socialism cannot work if it is not desired by the masses.


The process of building communism must be completely separated from violence and exploitation.

Capitalism accumulates a large wealth, but this wealth is kept away from the great majority of men and women who are kept from enjoying its fruits. It is therefore logical to note that if there were no sizeable expansion of the productive forces, there would be no material basis for socialism.


We can therefore conclude that in order for a socialist state to work, it must succeed a capitalist state, be global, and be desired by the masses and the workers. If it is not, then it is doomed to fail.

[Reznov]

It's an empty question, because you can't. Communism will only occur through the willing action of the masses*. Either the working class emancipates itself or it is not emancipated.

*(obviously it's forced on the bourgeoisie)

When we say that, I don't think I will be seeing anything in my life time. :crying:

[Pilkington]

Communism must be desired by the masses.

Marx warned against communistic revolutions which are carried out by single individuals. Such revolutions will often always turn into an authorotarian, materialistic, decayed state.


Unless the masses want and desire communism, it should not be "forced" upon anyone. If it is, then it is guranteed to fail as socialism can not work if it is not desired by the masses.

Agreed. And I would say that applies to anything else. If certain people wish to live in a system where things are done a certain way, let them. If some people want to live in, say, a satan worshipping society with sacrifices and so on, let them go ahead, as long as all involved are there by choice and they understand what they're involved in. If others wish to live in a society where a certain god is worshipped, that's fine too, if everyone there is happy with that. If some people want to live in a communist society with all that it would involve, great. Each to their own. We all have the right to disapprove, and to do our own thing. If someone wants to tell someone else that their system is flawed, that's ok. We have the right to disagree.

[ComradePonov]

I think it's important to point out that communism can not be "forced" upon anyone, as doing so would not be following marxist thought and therefore the revolution would not be communist.


Communism must be a popular uprising by the people and workers who are tired of the seeing the fabulous wealth generated by capitalism be concentrated amongst a small % of the population.

The moment the workers stop indulging the myth that the fabulous wealth generated by this mode of production will one day become available to all is the moment a popular prising will begin. Without such realisation, and without a popular uprising, a revolution can not be called "communist", because, quiete honestly, it is not...

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I think there's a misunderstanding of the Marxist view of revolution. A revolution doesn't occur when a group of alienated intellectuals decide, "hey, capitalism sucks" and succeed in fomenting a civil war to "impose" their ideology on everyone else. A revolution, that is a change in the socioecomic structure of a society occurs when the old society isn't working, when the masses of people know, beyond the shadow of a doubt that its not working.

Socialism is the self emancipation of the working class, the masses of people taking democratic control of the economy.

Large elements of socialism already exist, not in the way Sarah Palin or the Tea Party would say but in the sense that the means of production already is socialized. our work is collectivized but the ownership of our work isn't.

Socialism is an understanding and a vision of society. It is not possible for different modes of production to equally co-exist, the world is either socialist or it isn't.Today you can't have one town or state saying "let's keep feudalism" another area saying "lets remain a tribal tributary state" and another "let's be socialist", it doesn't work that way.

Pilkington, I would say that whatever your specific spiritual views are, socialism is much closer. Capitalism is the "mind forged manacles" based on egocentric domination and ownership of commodities. "He who owns the most toys when they die wins" Socialism is breaking out of that towards human freedom.

[Revolution starts with U]

Wait.. are you the Idiot Abroad?
Far more likely your avatar symbolizes Mr Pilkington from Animal Farm... which means you are an american bourgeoisie, which views socialism as "terrible wickedness," correct?

[CHE with an AK]

The workers chains should be cut by any means necessary. In the end, the capitalist rulers and oligarchs will have 2 options: (1) abdicate or (2) die.

Once capitalism falls, anyone attempting to prop it back up will be guilty of treason against the people - and should be shot. There is no "right", or "freedom" to be a capitalist, any more than there is a "right" to be a slaveholder.

[ComradePonov]

The workers chains should be cut by any means necessary. In the end, the capitalist rulers and oligarchs will have 2 options: (1) abdicate or (2) die.

Once capitalism falls, anyone attempting to prop it back up will be guilty of treason against the people - and should be shot. There is no "right", or "freedom" to be a capitalist, any more than there is a "right" to be a slaveholder.


Well... I obviously disagree. Socialism isn't about shooting capitalists. It is also not about cutting the chains of the people by "any means necessary." The people must overthrow their capitalist overlords through a popular uprising. In other words, the people should cut their own chains, not a third party led by iconic individuals. If the people are not ready for a communistic revolution, then said revolution will absolutely fail. The entire concept of violent revolution is idiotic, because said revolution can not be called communist if it was not started, supported, and carried out by the masses.


"there is no right or freedom" for capitalists? Now are you just making stuff up. What you're describing is closer to an authorotarian state than a socialist one. The capitalists are only able to stay in power as long as they have the support of the masses. The entire democratic institution will shatter if it is no longer supported by millions of voters. As a result, in a true socialist state, where the masses no longer support the capitalists and have already overthrown the bourgeois, executing capitalists will be totally unnecessary.

I don't want to live in a state which shoots any one who it disagrees with. You can not call your self a socialist if this is what you advocate.

[CHE with an AK]

Well... I obviously disagree. Socialism isn't about shooting capitalists. It is also not about cutting the chains of the people by "any means necessary."
Who said anything about Socialism? The title of the article is about Communism. They're not the same thing.




The people must overthrow their capitalist overlords through a popular uprising.
Unarmed? Good luck with that. :rolleyes: I prefer to advocate cutting off the devils claws ourselves, than asking him sternly.





The entire concept of violent revolution is idiotic
I guess so, if you are a naive idealistic utopian quasi-leftist who wants nominal "socialism" and defends the rights of capitalists to exist and exploit. Why not just move to Sweden and call it a day then?





What you're describing is closer to an authorotarian state than a socialist one.
What I am describing is an armed Dictatorship of the Proletariat, with a mandate to preserve a state built on Marxist principles at all costs.





The entire democratic institution will shatter if it is no longer supported by millions of voters.
Voters? Democracy? A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. My ideal system would be led by a vanguard party in a single party state. You have to remember that not all of us here want provincialism or little committees everywhere. Many of us want central planning and a strong central state.





You can not call your self a socialist if this is what you advocate.
I'm not a "socialist", I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Guevarist who supports the idea of violent revolution and post-revolutionary justice. I'm also a realist, and realize that capitalists don't go quietly, they always require force to unclutch their riches and power.

[RGacky3]

All oyu need to do is STOP forcing capitalism (property laws).

[Pilkington]

What I don't get about communism is your ideas about owning things and labour / getting paid. From the little that I've read (and correct me if I'm wrong), in a communist system, anyone who works anywhere would get a share of whatever they produce.

What if they don't want a share? What if they want money so that they can go and spend it on whatever they want?



And there would be no individual ownership of property.

Why? If I build a house it's mine, not yours. Build your own house. And if I sell or give it to someone else, that's my business.


And there seems to be a lot of focus on fairness and equal rights and so on. As long as there are people who are a bit selfish or unreasonable, and as long as there are misunderstandings in life, and as long as there is plain old bad luck, the world will never be fair. Trying to create a society in which unfairness is tackled and eradicated at every turn is pointless and futile. This is an imperfect world. Whatever system you have, there will always be unfairness. For example, if you get fired from your job unfairly, instead of spending the rest of your life moaning and complaining about it, you move on. Tough luck, that's life. Encouraging people to be cogs in a cosy machine that looks after all their needs is taking away their backbone. Without unfairness and many other types of negativity in life, you lose the chance to grow and become a stronger person. Communism effectively turns people into weaklings.



It seems to me that communism is an attempt at solving current issues in a way that basically pokes its nose into everyone's business and tries to get them all to agree to be cogs in a machine rather than individuals.

The other problem, and this applies to many political philosophies, is that it views the world and life in a very one dimensional way. It's half baked. It takes one or two romantic concepts of how society might be and runs with them all the way, without thinking holistically. Sorry but communism is not an attractice proposition to me, and many others would feel the same. This means that communism will never become a world system. This means that if you try to force it on everyone you will fail, and if you hope that the majority will one day agree with communism, that won't happen either. You have too much competition, too many other ideas to compete with. Your best bet is to try and create a communist society for yourselves if that's how you want to live.

[ComradeMan]

No revolution will be successful unless it has popular support, as in Cuba for example, if you force "liberation" on people then you are not really liberating them, are you?

[Revolution starts with U]

The only thing worse than a restriction system is a piss poor set of mods that lets an avowed cappie run around unrestricted for days :D
Get on it, or get rid of the program!

Pilk, you basically just sound like a status quo apologist. I am not sure your argument would have been any different during fuedalism or slavery.
Democracy? Seems to me you're just trying to create fairness in an unfair world.
Free Labor (as opposed to slavery)? Some people disagree with you on the rights of humans and you will have to force them to give up their slaves.

The only thing worse than being a massive tool is when you don't realize that is what you are. You're like a hammer that thinks it's a flower.

[Pilkington]

The only thing worse than a restriction system is a piss poor set of mods that lets an avowed cappie run around unrestricted for days :D
Get on it, or get rid of the program!

Pilk, you basically just sound like a status quo apologist. I am not sure your argument would have been any different during fuedalism or slavery.
Democracy? Seems to me you're just trying to create fairness in an unfair world.
Free Labor (as opposed to slavery)? Some people disagree with you on the rights of humans and you will have to force them to give up their slaves.

The only thing worse than being a massive tool is when you don't realize that is what you are. You're like a hammer that thinks it's a flower.

No not really. If you read my posts you will see that I'm not in favour of the status quo. Quite the opposite, as I've clearly stated. It's just that I don't agree with communism. Did you get confused? And why do you believe in censorship?

[hatzel]

It's just that I don't agree with communism.

Then what do you agree with? Feel like sharing your political vision, the replacement for the status quo? I have...an idea of what it might be, a little guess, but I won't share it yet, I'd rather you do it :)

[Pilkington]

Then what do you agree with? Feel like sharing your political vision, the replacement for the status quo? I have...an idea of what it might be, a little guess, but I won't share it yet, I'd rather you do it :)

No why don't you tell us what you think my ideas might be.

[hatzel]

No why don't you tell us what you think my ideas might be.

Probably because discussion forums aren't supposed to be some kind of "I'm thinking a number, guess what it is" game...perhaps...?

[Pilkington]

Probably because discussion forums aren't supposed to be some kind of "I'm thinking a number, guess what it is" game...perhaps...?

Fair enough. I was just mildly curious. But I suppose it doesn't matter.

[Revolution starts with U]

No not really. If you read my posts you will see that I'm not in favour of the status quo. Quite the opposite, as I've clearly stated. It's just that I don't agree with communism. Did you get confused? And why do you believe in censorship?

I don't. Did you not see how I disagree with the restriction system? Buuut... as long as we're going to have one, the mods could at least do their jobs.

And you may have some disagreements with the SQ... but you still are just apologising for it. You disagree with trying to push for fairness, believe in "natural heirarchy" (it seems), and think that forcing tyrants not to be tyrants is some kind of travesty of justice...
If you're not a cappie (and if I'm not mistaken me and the Rabbi are on the same page about you) then you are some brand of fascist/third positionist.

[ComradeMan]

If you're not a cappie (and if I'm not mistaken me and the Rabbi are on the same page about you) then you are some brand of fascist/third positionist.

That thought had crossed my mind too....third positionism.... now there's three of us. ;)

[hatzel]

I was just mildly curious.

And I'm mildly curious to know which political system you advocate, Pilky. One would assume that somebody who has come onto a political forum to discuss politics would be forthcoming in talking about their own politics, and in outlining their preferred political system. Or am I just somewhat old-fashioned in my expectations?

[Pilkington]

I don't. Did you not see how I disagree with the restriction system? Buuut... as long as we're going to have one, the mods could at least do their jobs.

And you may have some disagreements with the SQ... but you still are just apologising for it. You disagree with trying to push for fairness, believe in "natural heirarchy" (it seems), and think that forcing tyrants not to be tyrants is some kind of travesty of justice...
If you're not a cappie (and if I'm not mistaken me and the Rabbi are on the same page about you) then you are some brand of fascist/third positionist.

Actually you're wrong on all counts. One doesn't have to disagree with all aspects of a system in order to be against it as a whole. And some things have nothing much to do with what system one lives under.

Your fantasy of a world in which everyone lives exactly the way you want them to will never come to pass, because firstly, not everyone agrees with your views and there's nothing you can do about it. Secondly, there are people just as obsessed with other ideas about how society should be run as you are. You have no hope at all.

All you can ever hope for, if anything, is that enough people agree with your ideas to form a little society in which everyone gets to live that way. Have you tried that? I think you'll be happier that way.

[Pilkington]

And I'm mildly curious to know which political system you advocate, Pilky. One would assume that somebody who has come onto a political forum to discuss politics would be forthcoming in talking about their own politics, and in outlining their preferred political system. Or am I just somewhat old-fashioned in my expectations?

Well, sombrita mi linda, I still can't get over my own curiority about what you think my ideas are. But I'll try to control that curiosity as it really doesn't matter in the long run.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I think our friend Pilkie doesn't have a political position. He might say "I'm beyond politics".He seems to believe politics is something used to ensnare us, the veil of maya seeking to divide and delude us.

N'cest pas?

[hatzel]

sombrita mi linda

Aww, te quiero, mi amor :tt1:


I still can't get over my own curiority about what you think my ideas areSee, here's where the issue is...other people are running around with accusations of third positionism...me, I'm not making that accusation, I have a totally different idea. One which is considerably more palatable, but...it appears as though something has roused their suspicions enough to make these claims, so I'd hate to make a suggestion, for you to then say 'yes yes yes, that's what I believe, it fits because you said it did!' whilst actually being a third positionist or similar, and just using my suggestion as a kind of cover. See what I mean, here?

For what it's worth, third positionism doesn't, in my opinion, fit with what you've actually been saying, unless you're just saying stuff to try to trick us into believing that you hold views different than your own. I question why you'd bother with all that, but given what people do on the internet nowadays, particularly on this forum when they come in all 'maaaaan I don't wanna be no commie, y'all better leave me out o' your plans!' or such, I wouldn't be all that surprised. Which may explain some of the suspicions here, because of course a third positionist, knowing that such viewpoints will see them banned from the forum, wouldn't admit to it, if they intend to remain on the forum for some reason...

The other potential issue is that your introduction thread said: "I'm a firm believer in equal rights, fairness, and each person getting what is due to them." This seems to contradict what you said in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2188505&postcount=76), where you attacked these same concepts. I can understand that people's politics can change with time, but this seems like a pretty drastic change in a very short period of time. Hence people may be justified in believing that you don't necessarily hold the positions that you claim to hold, instead merely pretending to for the sake of the argument at hand. With this in mind, it's easy to understand where accusations of third positionism come from, if you merely pretend to hold this or that more palatable position to try to prevent people from jumping on you. Or, at least, accusations of being a slippery slippery serpent, which I am myself making :)

[ZeroNowhere]

Communism should be forced on people through the revolutionary and totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat. That is all.

[Pilkington]

Aww, te quiero, mi amor :tt1:

See, here's where the issue is...other people are running around with accusations of third positionism...me, I'm not making that accusation, I have a totally different idea. One which is considerably more palatable, but...it appears as though something has roused their suspicions enough to make these claims, so I'd hate to make a suggestion, for you to then say 'yes yes yes, that's what I believe, it fits because you said it did!' whilst actually being a third positionist or similar, and just using my suggestion as a kind of cover. See what I mean, here?

For what it's worth, third positionism doesn't, in my opinion, fit with what you've actually been saying, unless you're just saying stuff to try to trick us into believing that you hold views different than your own. I question why you'd bother with all that, but given what people do on the internet nowadays, particularly on this forum when they come in all 'maaaaan I don't wanna be no commie, y'all better leave me out o' your plans!' or such, I wouldn't be all that surprised. Which may explain some of the suspicions here, because of course a third positionist, knowing that such viewpoints will see them banned from the forum, wouldn't admit to it, if they intend to remain on the forum for some reason...

The other potential issue is that your introduction thread said: "I'm a firm believer in equal rights, fairness, and each person getting what is due to them." This seems to contradict what you said in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2188505&postcount=76), where you attacked these same concepts. I can understand that people's politics can change with time, but this seems like a pretty drastic change in a very short period of time. Hence people may be justified in believing that you don't necessarily hold the positions that you claim to hold, instead merely pretending to for the sake of the argument at hand. With this in mind, it's easy to understand where accusations of third positionism come from, if you merely pretend to hold this or that more palatable position to try to prevent people from jumping on you. Or, at least, accusations of being a slippery slippery serpent, which I am myself making :)

You're getting confused. Yes I believe in fairness and so on. But that's my business and my personal view. You need to get away from this idea that just because something is right, or better, or fair, that it should be the way things are run. I believe that it's right for people to be content, but I don't believe that it's the state's job to wrap everyone in cotton wool in order to make that happen. I believe in a lot of things, but I also believe that it's up to each person to live how theywant to live, rather than the state creating a system in which everyone has to live a particular way.

I'll explain that again in another way. If you don't think it's right for someone to own a car factory and pay an hourly wage to their employees, then make the decision not to do that. It's your life. But everyone else has the right to live how they want. I don't believe in any of your isms because they all revolve around a particular way of doing things and woe betide anyone who says no to it. Communists, fascists, and all the other ists, you're all the same although I doubt many of you have a clue as to how.

And what is a third positionist? And why do you censor fascists and third positionists? Why are you scared of being contradicted? You can't handle disagreements within your own forum, how do you expect to get the world to agree with your views? You have no chance. Hundreds of millions of people don't agree with your views.

I don't know hardly anything about politics and I don't particularly want to because I know enough to know that it's all a waste of time and energy. It's a stupid game created for people who believe that they have the possibility to do something outside "the system", or create another system, when in actual fact you are still part of the same system. Communism, just like so many other isms, are created to divide people, and there's always plenty of faultlines with which to do that. You're mugs.

By the way how do I read the reputation comments? I need a laugh.

[Pilkington]

Communism should be forced on people through the revolutionary and totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat. That is all.

And what text book did you get those oh so wise words from, comrade? Communism will never be widely accepted. It won't. You have too much competition on your hands. You are doomed to a lifetime of frustration.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'll explain that again in another way. If you don't think it's right for someone to own a car factory and pay an hourly wage to their employees, then make the decision not to do that. It's your life. But everyone else has the right to live how they want.


By the way how do I read the reputation comments? I need a laugh.
That's the problem, we are talking about how the productive forces in a society are organized. We have no choice at all, if you choose not to work in the car factory, you starve.

Under capitalism people do not have the right to live as they choose. Oh, there are legal rights but people are not isolated monads, we exist in a society. That is the fallacy of liberalism and why the bourgeois revolutions of the 18th/19th centuries ran up against a dead end.

Watch the movie "Burn!" for a good illustration of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn!

[hatzel]

I don't believe that it's the state's job
rather than the state creating a system

You appear to have overlooked the fact that those on this forum specifically seek the total abolition of the State, that being a fundamental necessity in communism and other related tendencies, and therefore don't believe anything is the State's job, or that the State should be creating any systems.



And why do you censor fascists and third positionists? Why are you scared of being contradicted? You can't handle disagreements within your own forum, how do you expect to get the world to agree with your views?


This has been extensively covered about a million times on this forum. You could use the search function to get a more in-depth explanation, but it largely boils down to: a) the German owner of this site could be locked up for allowing Nazi shit on his site, that being a criminal offense under German law; and b) this is a forum for revolutionary leftists to discuss stuff with each other. It has absolutely no connection to the wider world.


You have no chance. Hundreds of millions of people don't agree with your views.


It's a stupid game created for people who believe that they have the possibility to do something outside "the system", or create another system, when in actual fact you are still part of the same system.


But you just told us to start our own little commie car factory so that we could live outside 'the system'...


By the way how do I read the reputation comments? I need a laugh.


User CP...

[Pilkington]

You appear to have overlooked the fact that those on this forum specifically seek the total abolition of the State, that being a fundamental necessity in communism and other related tendencies, and therefore don't believe anything is the State's job, or that the State should be creating any systems.





This has been extensively covered about a million times on this forum. You could use the search function to get a more in-depth explanation, but it largely boils down to: a) the German owner of this site could be locked up for allowing Nazi shit on his site, that being a criminal offense under German law; and b) this is a forum for revolutionary leftists to discuss stuff with each other. It has absolutely no connection to the wider world.


You have no chance. Hundreds of millions of people don't agree with your views.




But you just told us to start our own little commie car factory so that we could live outside 'the system'...




User CP...

Yes that's right. Why don't you do that?

[Nox]

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2808/unledpilkington.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/unledpilkington.jpg/)

Made this just for you.

[ComradePonov]

Communism should be forced on people through the revolutionary and totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat. That is all.


Unfortunately, that is not possible. It will turn into a decayed dictatorship in a short period of time (observe any number of revolutions which were carried out in poor countries and without the support of the masses.) I don't know what is so hard to understand here, Communism, as proposed by Marx, cannot work if it was forced onto people. If it was, that means the people were not ready for communism. If the people do not want communism, it will not work. Socialism, the transition period between capitalism and communism, will only work if it follows a capitalist system and is also supported by the majority of the people.

To the individual who said "we are talking about communism, not socialism," Sir, do explain how you plan to directly transform capitalism into communism. Of course, this is impossible to implement. It has been previously attempted, and has failed, big time.


I think it's also noteworthy to mention that I disagree completely with the concept of a strong centralised state and / or a vanguard party. These are not the characteristics of a socialist state, but rather the characteristics of a socialist state which was not ready for socialism. As such, said state is definitely not ready for communism.

[Pilkington]

http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2808/unledpilkington.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/854/unledpilkington.jpg/)

Made this just for you.

Oh no. I'm heartbroken. Woe is me.

[ComradePonov]

You appear to have overlooked the fact that those on this forum specifically seek the total abolition of the State, that being a fundamental necessity in communism and other related tendencies, and therefore don't believe anything is the State's job, or that the State should be creating any systems.





This has been extensively covered about a million times on this forum. You could use the search function to get a more in-depth explanation, but it largely boils down to: a) the German owner of this site could be locked up for allowing Nazi shit on his site, that being a criminal offense under German law; and b) this is a forum for revolutionary leftists to discuss stuff with each other. It has absolutely no connection to the wider world.


You have no chance. Hundreds of millions of people don't agree with your views.




But you just told us to start our own little commie car factory so that we could live outside 'the system'...




User CP...



Why feed the troll by responding to it?

[Pilkington]

Why feed the troll by responding to it?

Oh yes of course. Anyone who doesn't agree with your oh so righteous views is a troll. Good luck persuading the world that you're right. Seriously, I mean it.

[Nox]

Oh yes of course. Anyone who doesn't agree with your oh so righteous views is a troll. Good luck persuading the world that you're right. Seriously, I mean it.

You're a National Socialist therefore your opinion is invalid.

[thesadmafioso]

And why do you censor fascists and third positionists? Why are you scared of being contradicted?

Well gents, I think we may just need to call out the cute animals. I propose we begin with the ever so lovable Koala Bear, two of them even. To show the troll that we do in fact mean business.

http://www.valdosta.edu/~asjackson/koala%20bear.jpg

[ComradePonov]

Oh yes of course. Anyone who doesn't agree with your oh so righteous views is a troll. Good luck persuading the world that you're right. Seriously, I mean it.


This is a leftist forum. If you are not a leftist, it means you are not contributing to the discussion. If you are not contributing to the discussion, you are a troll.


Just as I would be a troll if I went to stormfront or a place where right wing nut jobs gather.

[Pilkington]

You're a National Socialist therefore your opinion is invalid.

That's it, you und me, outside. I vill nicht tolerate zese akusations!

[Pilkington]

This is a leftist forum. If you are not a leftist, it means you are not contributing to the discussion. If you are not contributing to the discussion, you are a troll.


Just as I would be a troll if I went to stormfront or a place where right wing nut jobs gather.

Yeah but those right wing nuts think that all of you here are nutters too. And all of you and all of them are exactly the same yet you don't even see it.

[Nox]

What puzzles me is why his rep has increased from -7 to -3 :confused:

[La Peur Rouge]

Yeah but those right wing nuts think that all of you here are nutters too. And all of you and all of them are exactly the same yet you don't even see it.

Please, describe how we're exactly the same.

[hatzel]

Why feed the troll by responding to it?

Probably because...


If you are not contributing to the discussion, you are a troll.

Some of us are hoping against hope that something vaguely resembling a civil discussion may actually be had at some point :)


You're a National Socialist therefore your opinion is invalid.

Feel like backing up that accusation with...you know...any evidence whatsoever...? :confused:

[Nox]

Edit: nvm

[Nox]

Feel like backing up that accusation with...you know...any evidence whatsoever...? :confused:

Well, I'm not too sure about it now

But at that time I based the accusation on the fact that he is anti-capitalist, yet he is also anti-communist.

[thesadmafioso]

Feel like backing up that accusation with...you know...any evidence whatsoever...? :confused:

There is this gem, though it isn't exactly proof that he is an outright fascist.


And why do you censor fascists and third positionists? Why are you scared of being contradicted?

[Nox]

^ What he said, also

[thesadmafioso]

Anyone else curious as to why there are 17 guests viewing this topic at the moment? Almost would seem that his friends from [insert fitting right wing forum here] have come to view the trolling for themselves.

[hatzel]

But at that time I based the accusation on the fact that he is anti-capitalist, yet he is also anti-communist.

Terribly specific, definitely equals Nazism...and is he even anti-communist? He seems to have no problem whatsoever with people organising themselves in some kind of communist society, as long this organisation is entirely voluntary. He could be an individualist anarchist, a voluntaryist, a panarchist, a post-anarchist (of some description, if he doesn't acknowledge the possibility of one political system being demonstrably better than another), a post-left anarchist (stretching it a bit), anything. There's the possibility that he's a fascist of some stripe, sure, and he's definitely a big ol' troll, but if you're just going to respond to criticism with 'man, you a nazi!' then you're just getting trolled something silly and that both sucks and blows :)


Anyone else curious as to why there are 17 guests viewing this topic at the moment? Almost would seem that his friends from [insert fitting right wing forum here] have come to view the trolling for themselves.

The guests always flock in when I'm about. It's my fan club :thumbup:

[Impulse97]

@Pilkington

The fact that you know absolutely nothing about socialism or Marxism is glaringly obvious. You repeatedly try and use arguments that are irrelevant or invalid.

We aren't going to put a gun to everyone's head and force them to be communist. The 'force' is used on the bourgeois, the proletariat as a united class and a majority forces it on the minority capitalists. This is accomplished, because the working class has realized what and epic failure capitalism is and how much they have been taken advantage of by supporting it. It's called class consciousness. Every worker is united by the fact that they are exploited by an employer via wage slavery and capitalism. When every proletariat realizes this, they will be an unstoppable force that is capable and willing to overthrow the caps literally comprised of 90% of the worlds people. They don't need convincing, they'll realize it on their own. We leftists are just trying to speed it up, via activism, literature, organizing etc. etc. so that the exploitation and suffering can end sooner rather than later.

Okay, say a coal mine has ten employees and one mine owner. Each day, each miner(proletariat/working class) produces 10 tons of coal, totaling 100 tons production for the whole mine. Then, the owner(bourgeois/capitalist) takes the coal and sells it for $10/ton, giving a fraction of the sale to his miners as a wage, keeping the rest as profit.
Next, lets say that each worker has a wage of $50/day, therefore the capitalist, would end up keeping HALF of the money gained by the miners hard work. All while doing nothing. They produced $1,000 worth of goods, yet only get to keep $500 worth of it split ten ways. This is the crux of why all of us are anti-caps. Why should the workers, only get paid a fraction of what the coal is worth when they worked for it and the cap gets a rich reward for sitting on his ass all day doing nothing.

This raises another point disproving one of your irrelevant arguments. That, not everyone would want a share of what they produced. The coal miners don't literally get paid in coal, that's just impractical. If we did that then everyone who worked at DQ would only be paid in ice cream. What they get, is credits, money etc. etc. equal to the ammount of goods they produce. Or in the case of service jobs like doctors or fast food workers, it varies on how much said job contributes to society. Obviously, then a doctor would still be paid more than a worker at McD's, because their job contributes more to society and the people.

What socialism and later communism do is eliminate wage slavery, e.g. getting paid only a fraction of the value of what your labor produced. That and it taxes the rich more, because they're the ones that can afford to pay for societies needs. So, you've eliminated wages, taxed those that can afford it, now what? Well, most of that money would go towards social services like health care, public housing, public transport and fuel etc. Thus, it's the combination of these things, and some others I didn't mention, that combine to give us equality.

It's not that everyone wears and does exactly the same thing or dr.'s and fast food workers get paid the same thing. It's leveling the playing field to give everyone a chance to live a long, fulfilling life, free of hunger, thirst or illness. Currently, only the wealthy are afforded this security with little worry of losing it. The middle class, or sometimes called the petite-bourgeois, has this security to an extent and often has its needs met, but it has little excess for anything other than ensuring the basic needs are met. Also, it's not uncommon for the middle class to lose this security, because of insufficient income. Then there's the poor and working class, who fight to even achieve this security and are more often than not, denied this right due to lack of money.

[Nox]

Terribly specific, definitely equals Nazism...

Please just stop trying to sound smart;

1.) He is clearly anti-capitalist
2.) He is clearly anti-communist
3.) He is clearly trolling to an extent
4.) He has made some fascist-ish remarks

From those 4 factors, we can be fairly certain that he is a fascist/nazi.

Use some common sense.

[ComradeMan]

Okay well let's just do it the fairest way.


Pilkington...... what are you in political terms?

[Napoleon Winston]

My impression is that the "fascist" is for the censorship of speech and the promotion of a single view. Yet you have a person you do not agree with, and you censor him, on a board for views that you do not agree with no less, does that not in itself make you fascist? It seems, in an effort to censor other, you have to become what you most hate.

[hatzel]

Please just stop trying to sound smart

You think I have to try? :p

Anyway, seems like needless flaming from where I'm sitting. Don't burn your fingers when you've only just got here...


1.) He is clearly anti-capitalistWell that's great!

2.) He is clearly anti-communistOr, he is against the forced imposition of communism on an unwilling populace. He has NO problem with individuals and groups adopting communism, if they themselvs desire, yet debates whether there could ever be universal agreement with any given political system, this being the inherent weakness of any universalist ideology; it prevents autonomous decision-making. Never heard of classical liberalism, which most definitely isn't fascism?

3.) He is clearly trolling to an extent Some are born trolls. Some become trolls. Some have trollhood thrust upon them by baseless accusations of fascism in a thread which may well have been a serious attempt at discussion, in which many legitimate points have been raised and ignored.

4.) He has made some fascist-ish remarksPics or it didn't happen. But use quotes, your last picture was spam.


From those 4 factors, we can be fairly certain that he is a fascist/nazi.Alternatively no...


Use some common sense.You know puppies really shouldn't play with the big dogs...

[ZeroNowhere]

My impression is that the "fascist" is for the censorship of speech and the promotion of a single view. Yet you have a person you do not agree with, and you censor him, on a board for views that you do not agree with no less, does that not in itself make you fascist? It seems, in an effort to censor other, you have to become what you most hate.Oh no!

[praxis1966]

* Those who want to live that way would get to do so.

* Others outside that society would be able to see how that society works, and have the opportunity to join or reject it based on having seen how it actually works.

* No conflict.

Here's the problem with your assumptions, though. People can't mind their own business. What I'm saying is that there have already been socialist experiments tried in various countries around the world and there are a ton of explanations as to why various ones have failed.

What can't be denied, however, is that each and every one of the socialist experiments that have been tried have been overthrown, subverted, or otherwise tampered with by the capitalist states. So, your thinking that no conflict would exist is fundamentally flawed. History has already proven otherwise.

[Pilkington]

What puzzles me is why his rep has increased from -7 to -3 :confused:

There's a popular revolution, that's why. The common people are starting to find me more and more charismatic. Soon I will be your leader, comrade.

[Pilkington]

Please, describe how we're exactly the same.

No. I prefer to amuse myself knowing that you are deluded. Telling you why you're all the same would spoil that.

[hatzel]

Soon I will be your leader, comrade.

But surely only if he consents to your rule? :)

[ComradeMan]

Pilkington...... what are you in political terms?

Please clarify your position.

[Pilkington]

Anyone else curious as to why there are 17 guests viewing this topic at the moment? Almost would seem that his friends from [insert fitting right wing forum here] have come to view the trolling for themselves.

I think what's happening is that the common people are beginning to get very entertained watching you lot get angrier and angrier. Don't worry about it, that's just forum life. Don't let it distract you.

[Nox]

You think I have to try? :p

Anyway, seems like needless flaming from where I'm sitting. Don't burn your fingers when you've only just got here...

Well that's great!
Or, he is against the forced imposition of communism on an unwilling populace. He has NO problem with individuals and groups adopting communism, if they themselvs desire, yet debates whether there could ever be universal agreement with any given political system, this being the inherent weakness of any universalist ideology; it prevents autonomous decision-making. Never heard of classical liberalism, which most definitely isn't fascism?
Some are born trolls. Some become trolls. Some have trollhood thrust upon them by baseless accusations of fascism in a thread which may well have been a serious attempt at discussion, in which many legitimate points have been raised and ignored.
Pics or it didn't happen. But use quotes, your last picture was spam.

Alternatively no...

You know puppies really shouldn't play with the big dogs...

Let's see here...

>he asks for reasoning in a cocky way
>he is presented with reasoning in a cocky way as a response to his cockiness
>he pulls the old 'I've used this forum longer than you' and inserts a few sarcastic comments to hide his anger at being spoken to like that

Nice double standards :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

It seems that Pilkington is repeatedly avoiding polite requests to clarify his position politically and unfortunately some comrades are allowing themselves to be troll baited by an obviously third positionist troll who is in turn, perhaps, too cowardly to present his position.

[Pilkington]

@Pilkington

The fact that you know absolutely nothing about socialism or Marxism is glaringly obvious. You repeatedly try and use arguments that are irrelevant or invalid.

We aren't going to put a gun to everyone's head and force them to be communist. The 'force' is used on the bourgeois, the proletariat as a united class and a majority forces it on the minority capitalists. This is accomplished, because the working class has realized what and epic failure capitalism is and how much they have been taken advantage of by supporting it. It's called class consciousness. Every worker is united by the fact that they are exploited by an employer via wage slavery and capitalism. When every proletariat realizes this, they will be an unstoppable force that is capable and willing to overthrow the caps literally comprised of 90% of the worlds people. They don't need convincing, they'll realize it on their own. We leftists are just trying to speed it up, via activism, literature, organizing etc. etc. so that the exploitation and suffering can end sooner rather than later.

Okay, say a coal mine has ten employees and one mine owner. Each day, each miner(proletariat/working class) produces 10 tons of coal, totaling 100 tons production for the whole mine. Then, the owner(bourgeois/capitalist) takes the coal and sells it for $10/ton, giving a fraction of the sale to his miners as a wage, keeping the rest as profit.
Next, lets say that each worker has a wage of $50/day, therefore the capitalist, would end up keeping HALF of the money gained by the miners hard work. All while doing nothing. They produced $1,000 worth of goods, yet only get to keep $500 worth of it split ten ways. This is the crux of why all of us are anti-caps. Why should the workers, only get paid a fraction of what the coal is worth when they worked for it and the cap gets a rich reward for sitting on his ass all day doing nothing.

This raises another point disproving one of your irrelevant arguments. That, not everyone would want a share of what they produced. The coal miners don't literally get paid in coal, that's just impractical. If we did that then everyone who worked at DQ would only be paid in ice cream. What they get, is credits, money etc. etc. equal to the ammount of goods they produce. Or in the case of service jobs like doctors or fast food workers, it varies on how much said job contributes to society. Obviously, then a doctor would still be paid more than a worker at McD's, because their job contributes more to society and the people.

What socialism and later communism do is eliminate wage slavery, e.g. getting paid only a fraction of the value of what your labor produced. That and it taxes the rich more, because they're the ones that can afford to pay for societies needs. So, you've eliminated wages, taxed those that can afford it, now what? Well, most of that money would go towards social services like health care, public housing, public transport and fuel etc. Thus, it's the combination of these things, and some others I didn't mention, that combine to give us equality.

It's not that everyone wears and does exactly the same thing or dr.'s and fast food workers get paid the same thing. It's leveling the playing field to give everyone a chance to live a long, fulfilling life, free of hunger, thirst or illness. Currently, only the wealthy are afforded this security with little worry of losing it. The middle class, or sometimes called the petite-bourgeois, has this security to an extent and often has its needs met, but it has little excess for anything other than ensuring the basic needs are met. Also, it's not uncommon for the middle class to lose this security, because of insufficient income. Then there's the poor and working class, who fight to even achieve this security and are more often than not, denied this right due to lack of money.

You think I'm going to actually sit through all that? Start all over again and make your point in 50 words or less. Stop wasting resources, comrade.

[cogar66]

No. I prefer to amuse myself knowing that you are deluded. Telling you why you're all the same would spoil that.

10/10 would read again.

[thesadmafioso]

I think what's happening is that the common people are beginning to get very entertained watching you lot get angrier and angrier. Don't worry about it, that's just forum life. Don't let it distract you.

Since when do the 'common people' spend their time spectating on leftist internet forums?

Also, I agree entirely with ComradeMan on this reasonable question, what is your actual political ideology?

[Pilkington]

Please just stop trying to sound smart;

1.) He is clearly anti-capitalist
2.) He is clearly anti-communist
3.) He is clearly trolling to an extent
4.) He has made some fascist-ish remarks

From those 4 factors, we can be fairly certain that he is a fascist/nazi.

Use some common sense.

Nope, you can be as certain as you like, but stop trying to speak for your comrades, comrade.

[cogar66]

You think I'm going to actually sit through all that? Start all over again and make your point in 50 words or less. Stop wasting resources, comrade.
Can we ban the troll now?

[ComradeMan]

Nope, you can be as certain as you like, but stop trying to speak for your comrades, comrade.

You aren't anyone's comrade, just a rather pathetic individual who obviously gets kicks by scoring tiny perceived victories over the internet.

Cuando yo sea hombre no seré como él! :laugh:

[Nox]

lulz @ La Sombra for sticking up for the troll :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

lulz @ La Sombra for sticking up for the troll :laugh:

The rabbi is a nice guy, who'll be fair for fairness' sake even if he probably thinks someone is a complete douchebag.

Anyway... Pilkington, come on with you now and spit it out.

What the fuck are you and what do you want with us?

[hatzel]

lulz @ La Sombra for sticking up for the troll :laugh:

I see you flamin', I...ain't actually payin' no attention...

:)

[Pilkington]

Here's the problem with your assumptions, though. People can't mind their own business. What I'm saying is that there have already been socialist experiments tried in various countries around the world and there are a ton of explanations as to why various ones have failed.

What can't be denied, however, is that each and every one of the socialist experiments that have been tried have been overthrown, subverted, or otherwise tampered with by the capitalist states. So, your thinking that no conflict would exist is fundamentally flawed. History has already proven otherwise.

I take your point but maybe, just maybe, there are a huge number of people who don't want to live in a communist society. Those who understand communism and don't like it, and those who don't understand it and don't want to know. As for the former, you can't do much about that. As for the latter, you could try to explain it to them but at the end of the day it's their decision. When I say that by letting people live as they like there would be no conflict, I don't mean literally no conflict, I just mean that it would be relatively peaceful. I mean, the more aggressively competing ideologies you have, the more conflict you have. A simple way to do it is for those who want to live a certain way to set that up and for those who want to live another way to set their system up.

[hatzel]

A simple way to do it is for those who want to live a certain way to set that up and for those who want to live another way to set their system up.

Are you familiar with panarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism) and are you advocating it? :)

[ComradeMan]

I take your point but maybe, just maybe, there are a huge number of people who don't want to live in a communist society. ....

Reactionaries---:laugh: like you. Or those who have been mislead by bourgeois corruption and brainwashing.

Now- state your position and/or please do us a favour and fuck off.

[Pilkington]

Pilkington...... what are you in political terms?

Please clarify your position.

I'm a fucking human being with a soul and my own values. I don't have a label, or a nametag, or a serial number, or a pricetag, although you can apply any label to me that you like, I couldn't care less. That's your thing, not mine. I'm not defined by an ism and I don't subscribe to anything. I think what I like and I reserve the right to disagree and change my mind whenever and as many times as I please. I'm not part of a clique nor do I want to be. I see things the way I want to see them and not the way any herd wants me to see them.

If it makes you uncomfortable that I don't fit into any of your little box, that's problem.

[Pilkington]

Are you familiar with panarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism) and are you advocating it? :)

How do I know.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

We already live in a way which many people do not want to live. This is called capitalism.
Pilkington, the important thing to understand, a certain greengrocer's daughter and a demented Austrian economist notwithstanding, we live in a society. This society is organized in certain specific ways. These ways are not good.

I don't think we can say Pilkington is a Third Positionist, a fascist or anything like that. I think he just does not understand leftist thought.He has admitted he does not know much about politics. He is close to being a liberal, "you can be a communist if you want, I'll be a capitalist, and she can be a fascist...let's all agree to disagree."

As far as an alternative to the status quo, Pilkington believes in a new age of spiritual enlightenment, soon to come, in which people will realize their ideologies are all deluded.

[Nox]

I'm a fucking human being with a soul and my own values. I don't have a label, or a nametag, or a serial number, or a pricetag, although you can apply any label to me that you like, I couldn't care less. That's your thing, not mine. I'm not defined by an ism and I don't subscribe to anything. I think what I like and I reserve the right to disagree and change my mind whenever and as many times as I please. I'm not part of a clique nor do I want to be. I see things the way I want to see them and not the way any herd wants me to see them.

So, if you don't define yourself as a member of the revolutionary left, why are you here? :confused:

[ComradeMan]

I'm a fucking human being with a soul and my own values. I don't have a label, or a nametag, or a serial number, or a pricetag, although you can apply any label to me that you like, I couldn't care less. That's your thing, not mine. I'm not defined by an ism and I don't subscribe to anything. I think what I like and I reserve the right to disagree and change my mind whenever and as many times as I please. I'm not part of a clique nor do I want to be. I see things the way I want to see them and not the way any herd wants me to see them.

Quid tacet consentire videtur.

Your sort are the worst of the worst, the lowest of the low and the vilest of the vile. You sort are what I deem a reactionary by default, by laziness, by lack of will. The classic person who doesn't care, walks on by on the other side of the road, the person who looks the other way. If you subscribe to nothing then you are nothing, a non-entity and a non-human being. Human beings take an interest in society for we are social beings and for you to negate that social instinct is to negate your being part of society. I denounce you as the reactionary buffoon you are.

You can't be a fellow traveller for humanity.

[cogar66]

I'm a fucking human being with a soul and my own values. I don't have a label, or a nametag, or a serial number, or a pricetag, although you can apply any label to me that you like, I couldn't care less. That's your thing, not mine. I'm not defined by an ism and I don't subscribe to anything. I think what I like and I reserve the right to disagree and change my mind whenever and as many times as I please. I'm not part of a clique nor do I want to be. I see things the way I want to see them and not the way any herd wants me to see them.

If it makes you uncomfortable that I don't fit into any of your little box, that's problem.
You're such a unique flower. Fuckin labels, man.

[Thirsty Crow]

So, if you don't define yourself as a member of the revolutionary left, why are you here? :confused:
And why the fuck wouldn't he/she be here? There are people who may be interested in learning and discussion, and OI may serve this well.

[hatzel]

How do I know.

I dunno, it just seemed to fit quite well with certain elements of your position. People freely picking which system they wanted to be a part of etc. Of course there are other ways to do it than merely panarchism (some of which you may find more palatable), but the way you phrased it suggested to me that you had either read about it or could be interested in reading about it :)

[Nox]

Quid tacet consentire videtur.

Your sort are the worst of the worst, the lowest of the low and the vilest of the vile. You sort are what I deem a reactionary by default, by laziness, by lack of will. The classic person who doesn't care, walks on by on the other side of the road, the person who looks the other way. If you subscribe to nothing then you are nothing, a non-entity and a non-human being. Human beings take an interest in society for we are social beings and for you to negate that social instinct is to negate your being part of society. I denounce you as the reactionary buffoon you are.

You can't be a fellow traveller for humanity.

lol, slightly harsh but yes :laugh:

[Pilkington]

We already live in a way which many people do not want to live. This is called capitalism.
Pilkington, the important thing to understand, a certain greengrocer's daughter and a demented Austrian economist notwithstanding, we live in a society. This society is organized in certain specific ways. These ways are not good.

I don't think we can say Pilkington is a Third Positionist, a fascist or anything like that. I think he just does not understand leftist thought.He has admitted he does not know much about politics. He is close to being a liberal, "you can be a communist if you want, I'll be a capitalist, and she can be a fascist...let's all agree to disagree."

As far as an alternative to the status quo, Pilkington believes in a new age of spiritual enlightenment, soon to come, in which people will realize their ideologies are all deluded.

Why don't you, in your own words, and concisely, explain the basics of communism, and then I'll go through them and say if I agree or not, and why. That way I'll know more about communism and you'll have a better idea of where I'm coming from.

[Pilkington]

So, if you don't define yourself as a member of the revolutionary left, why are you here? :confused:

Because I feel like it.

[Pilkington]

Quid tacet consentire videtur.

Your sort are the worst of the worst, the lowest of the low and the vilest of the vile. You sort are what I deem a reactionary by default, by laziness, by lack of will. The classic person who doesn't care, walks on by on the other side of the road, the person who looks the other way. If you subscribe to nothing then you are nothing, a non-entity and a non-human being. Human beings take an interest in society for we are social beings and for you to negate that social instinct is to negate your being part of society. I denounce you as the reactionary buffoon you are.

You can't be a fellow traveller for humanity.

You are 100% correct.

[Pilkington]

You're such a unique flower. Fuckin labels, man.

So piss on me and make me grow.

[ComradeMan]

Why don't you, in your own words, and concisely, explain the basics of communism, and then I'll go through them and say if I agree or not, and why. That way I'll know more about communism and you'll have a better idea of where I'm coming from.

From each according to ability and to each according to their needs.

The rest is detail.

[ComradeMan]

So piss on me and make me grow.

I wouldn't tempt him.... :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

lol, slightly harsh but yes :laugh:

Old school. ;)

Perhaps have been hanging around to much with Joseph S. the stalinoid shit is rubbing off on me! :D

[Nox]

Old school. ;)

Perhaps have been hanging around to much with Joseph S. the stalinoid shit is rubbing off on me! :D

*points to my avatar*

[Pilkington]

By the way, geezer with the weird russian name who keeps posting in my profile, I completely disagree with atheism too. I think we should have have a drink one day, me and you. That should be interesting.

[ComradeMan]

*points to my avatar*

:lol::p

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually you're wrong on all counts. One doesn't have to disagree with all aspects of a system in order to be against it as a whole. And some things have nothing much to do with what system one lives under.
Ya, that's about how fascists view capitalism... anarcho-fascist?


Your fantasy of a world in which everyone lives exactly the way you want them to will never come to pass
If I wanted that, I would hope it didn't come to pass. The last thing I want is to force people to live how I want them to live. What I, in actuality, want is for people to STOP telling other people how to live. That's why I am against the tyranical use of private properties inherent oligarchy.

because firstly, not everyone agrees with your views and there's nothing you can do about it.
Again, some people supported slavery.

Secondly, there are people just as obsessed with other ideas about how society should be run as you are. You have no hope at all.
Hope is for the lazy. Im not Obama.


All you can ever hope for, if anything, is that enough people agree with your ideas to form a little society in which everyone gets to live that way. Have you tried that? I think you'll be happier that way.
Again, slavery. Going and living without slavery, is not how it was defeated in the 1st world.
History, have you tried to learn that?!;)

[ComradeMan]

By the way, geezer with the weird russian name who keeps posting in my profile, I completely disagree with atheism too. I think we should have have a drink one day, me and you. That should be interesting.

I'd rather have a pizza.

[Pilkington]

Hey, comrademan, would you like to eradicate me?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Why don't you, in your own words, and concisely, explain the basics of communism, and then I'll go through them and say if I agree or not, and why. That way I'll know more about communism and you'll have a better idea of where I'm coming from.

I have tried to do this in my other posts on this thread and elsewhere.There are people on this forum who could explain this better than I could but...

Okay, capitalism is a society ruled by what is called "capital". Capital is essentially a socially agreed upon unit of wealth. It must be constantly reinvested, must constantly grow or it is no longer capital.

The communist critique of capitalism says that we are all prisoners of this abstract force of capital. we are capital's means of reproducing itself. Capital does not care about human life's, human values, anything else. It cares about the creation of more capital. Under capitalism everything, even our very self becomes a commodity to be bought and sold.

The productive powers of humanity are subordinated to capital's need to reproduce itself, ii. e., for a small number of people to make a profit off our labor.Zillions of contradictions stem from this whichg I could write hundreds of pages on. Childcare, caring for the elderly pays peanuts, sub human wages while bankers and hedge fund managers become multi-millionaires. In a highly advanced technical society people work 60/70 hours in able to own a house. In fact the more technology advances, the harder people must work under capitalism.

Marx's "Capital" did an amazing job of discussing this.

I could suggest watching the youtube videos "Kapitalism 101". This does a masterful job of discussing Marxian economics.

[Pilkington]

Ya, that's about how fascists view capitalism... anarcho-fascist?


If I wanted that, I would hope it didn't come to pass. The last thing I want is to force people to live how I want them to live. What I, in actuality, want is for people to STOP telling other people how to live. That's why I am against the tyranical use of private properties inherent oligarchy.

Again, some people supported slavery.

Hope is for the lazy. Im not Obama.


Again, slavery. Going and living without slavery, is not how it was defeated in the 1st world.
History, have you tried to learn that?!;)

Everything you say sounds like it came out of a text book.

[ComradeMan]

Hey, comrademan, would you like to eradicate me?

No, re-educate you.

6qLzQ4uOvio

[Pilkington]

I have tried to do this in my other posts on this thread and elsewhere.There are people on this forum who could explain this better than I could but...

Okay, capitalism is a society ruled by what is called "capital". Capital is essentially a socially agreed upon unit of wealth. It must be constantly reinvested, must constantly grow or it is no longer capital.

The communist critique of capitalism says that we are all prisoners of this abstract force of capital. we are capital's means of reproducing itself. Capital does not care about human life's, human values, anything else. It cares about the creation of more capital. Under capitalism everything, even our very self becomes a commodity to be bought and sold.

The productive powers of humanity are subordinated to capital's need to reproduce itself, ii. e., for a small number of people to make a profit off our labor.Zillions of contradictions stem from this whichg I could write hundreds of pages on. Childcare, caring for the elderly pays peanuts, sub human wages while bankers and hedge fund managers become multi-millionaires. In a highly advanced technical society people work 60/70 hours in able to own a house. In fact the more technology advances, the harder people must work under capitalism.

Marx's "Capital" did an amazing job of discussing this.

I could suggest watching the youtube videos "Kapitalism 101". This does a masterful job of discussing Marxian economics.

I don't agree with capitalism, from what you've described. Have you ever considered that perhaps the founders of communism were connected with the very same people who are behind capitalism? I mean, have you ever considered that all of these different systems were created in order to create conflict?

[Pilkington]

No, re-educate you.

6qLzQ4uOvio

Naah, I won't bother watching that.

[hatzel]

Have you ever considered that perhaps the founders of communism were connected with the very same people who are behind capitalism? I mean, have you ever considered that all of these different systems were created in order to create conflict?

Who exactly would be charged with creating both capitalism and communism...?

[ComradeMan]

I don't agree with capitalism, from what you've described. Have you ever considered that perhaps the founders of communism were connected with the very same people who are behind capitalism? I mean, have you ever considered that all of these different systems were created in order to create conflict?

Third-position ALERT!!!

You'll be telling us it's a zionist plot next, no doubt?
:rolleyes:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

That's the Marxist critique of capitalism. It is difficult to give a summary of this but that might make a god start. anyway, check out those videos.

As for what communist want, its a society democratically ruled by the producers themselves, by the working class. We already live in sa "collectivized" society. we work in large or small companies, we exist in the context of a vast interlocking economy. The only alternative to this is to either be a hermit or live in a self sufficient commune (and these are difficult options, most countercultural projects have fallen apart)

The tradition I come from talks about worker's democracy. All work places are run by the people who work in them. Radio stations, schools, factories, retail sales, you name it, are run by worker's councils, not by bankers, not by a capitalist owner who has to maximize profit, but by the worker's themselves. All the people termed "stakeholder's" -neighbors, customer's suppliers, etc. would have a say.

Of course there would be a need for democratic coordination. Who needs how much of what? There would not be a market but a system of democratic allocation and distribution.

That in a nutshell is communism. It is much different from what we have today.

The important thing to note is that one cannot live apart from society. The society we must live in conditions every aspect of our lives.

Whew, I can't write anymore! "I got blisters on my fingers!" to quote Richard Starkey.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm a fucking human being
me 2 :D
Good to know... I might have gotten confused and thot you were a Vogon.

with a soul
:rolleyes:

and my own values.
You really think that? I used to think that too... and then I learned a little pshyc/sociology

I don't have a label, or a nametag, or a serial number, or a pricetag, although you can apply any label to me that you like, I couldn't care less
You keep thinking that, and people will continue to use you as a tool for their ends. Someone once said "all evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing." I agree w Comrademan, you are the worst of the worst. A hammer that thinks it's a flower. A Tool, that can't understand what it is.

That's your thing, not mine.
That's a human thing, It's why you keep referring to "us communists." If you want to see your ideology come to fruition... you could at least stop labeling people yourself. Just stopping labeling yourself is doing nothing.

I'm not defined by an ism and I don't subscribe to anything.
I used to think that way too. But other people will see you, and use you as an ism. Nameley apathism, you know, the best kind of ism for tyrants and dictators.

I think what I like and I reserve the right to disagree and change my mind whenever and as many times as I please. I'm not part of a clique nor do I want to be. I see things the way I want to see them and not the way any herd wants me to see them.
Im sure you think thats true :rolleyes:


If it makes you uncomfortable that I don't fit into any of your little box, that's problem.
Why do you assume you being an anarcho-fascist makes me uncomfortable? Why label me? Do you even know if Im a communist or not?
Dont label me bro :rolleyes::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Pilkington]

Third-position ALERT!!!

You'll be telling us it's a zionist plot next, no doubt?
:rolleyes:

Did you hear that everyone? THIRD POSITION ALERT!!!

DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

Yes, comrademan, it's a zionist plot. Don't let the fact that I don't even know what zionist means throw you, just go with your gut. I'm disagreeing!! Give me a label to give everyone the cue that I am to be eradicated!

DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

ADMIN, BAN ME AT ONCE! I'M DISAGREEING!

DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

[Pilkington]

That's the Marxist critique of capitalism. It is difficult to give a summary of this but that might make a god start. anyway, check out those videos.

As for what communist want, its a society democratically ruled by the producers themselves, by the working class. We already live in sa "collectivized" society. we work in large or small companies, we exist in the context of a vast interlocking economy. The only alternative to this is to either be a hermit or live in a self sufficient commune (and these are difficult options, most countercultural projects have fallen apart)

The tradition I come from talks about worker's democracy. All work places are run by the people who work in them. Radio stations, schools, factories, retail sales, you name it, are run by worker's councils, not by bankers, not by a capitalist owner who has to maximize profit, but by the worker's themselves. All the people termed "stakeholder's" -neighbors, customer's suppliers, etc. would have a say.

Of course there would be a need for democratic coordination. Who needs how much of what? There would not be a market but a system of democratic allocation and distribution.

That in a nutshell is communism. It is much different from what we have today.

The important thing to note is that one cannot live apart from society. The society we must live in conditions every aspect of our lives.

Whew, I can't write anymore! "I got blisters on my fingers!" to quote Richard Starkey.

The idea of people owning and controlling something collectively isn't something that I have any particular problem with in itself, and it depends on what the thing is. But I see it as an option among many. I don't think that everyone should have to do things the same way. Partly because sometimes it's not practical, but just as if not more importantly than that, because I think people should be free to do things however they think is best.

[ComradeMan]

....

If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen! Don't tell me you don't know what zionist means, you're being disingenuous here, albeit par excellence.

If you are anti-capitalist, anti-communist then it doesn't leave much room unless you are some kind of primitivist.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I don't agree with capitalism, from what you've described. Have you ever considered that perhaps the founders of communism were connected with the very same people who are behind capitalism? I mean, have you ever considered that all of these different systems were created in order to create conflict?

Reptiloids? Seriously though, of course the founders of communism were connected tom the people behind capitalism. Marx was influenced by Adam Smith, Ricardo, the Scottish materialists, etc.

The thing is, its not a group of conspirators who brought us capitalism, its the material evolution of society from the Medievil ages to the present. The capitalist revolution occurred in Europe, specifically in England, for specific reasons. Marx talks about this in "The Genesis of Capitalism". A textile industry started in Flanders, feudal land owners found they could make a profit forcing their peasants to compete against one another, land gradually was "alienated" and became a commodity and feudalism made the long painful transistion to capitalism.

There possibly were other directions Europe could have gone. Murray Bookchin talked about this and William Burrough's in "Cities of the red Night" referred to this.There were religious inspired communist revolts and uprisings. The fact is a very definite capitalist revoluytion occured roughly between the 14th to the 19th century.

[Pilkington]

If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen! Don't tell me you don't know what zionist means, you're being disingenuous here, albeit par excellence.

If you are anti-capitalist, anti-communist then it doesn't leave much room unless you are some kind of primitivist.

Seriously I have no idea what zionist means. Or primitivist.

[Nox]

By the way, geezer with the weird russian name who keeps posting in my profile, I completely disagree with atheism too. I think we should have have a drink one day, me and you. That should be interesting.

Firstly, don't get personal. Please man up and hold in your anger rather than spurt out weak insults.

Secondly, you posted on my profile first, I was foolish to keep responding to your attention seeking comments.

Thirdly, cool, you can believe whatever you want.

Fourthly, I doubt it would be worth it really, I'm a very shy person ;)

[Nox]

Third-position ALERT!!!

You'll be telling us it's a zionist plot next, no doubt?
:rolleyes:

Lol, that's exactly what I was thinking :laugh:

Next thing you know he'll start to spurt out a bunch of crap involving the nwo or illuminati or whatever it is :p

[Revolution starts with U]

Everything you say sounds like it came out of a text book.
So what you're basically saying is.. you don't like me becuase I read? :rolleyes:
I doubt you will see anything I said there in a text book tho, so nice try... but your troll failed. But if you think you can find it, cite the textbook for me... assuming you have ever read anything in your life?


I don't agree with capitalism, from what you've described. Have you ever considered that perhaps the founders of communism were connected with the very same people who are behind capitalism? I mean, have you ever considered that all of these different systems were created in order to create conflict?
Would those same people by chance be "the jews?" You know, that's what people mean when they say that 9.9/10 times... that other .1 time is when they say it's reptilian aliens, which usually are Jews anyway.


Did you hear that everyone? THIRD POSITION ALERT!!!

DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

Yes, comrademan, it's a zionist plot. Don't let the fact that I don't even know what zionist means throw you, just go with your gut. I'm disagreeing!! Give me a label to give everyone the cue that I am to be eradicated!

DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

ADMIN, BAN ME AT ONCE! I'M DISAGREEING!

DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

You said "have you ever considered comm and cap were created by the same people" which, again, 9/10 times means the Jews created them in order to take over the world.
So in order to clear up all confusion.. just who are these people that created both capitalism and communism to divide humanity?

[ComradeMan]

Lol, that's exactly what I was thinking :laugh:

Next thing you know he'll start to spurt out a bunch of crap involving the nwo or illuminati or whatever it is :p

His next post will probably say "I don't even know who the nwo or illuminati are, what does it mean?".

[Lenina Rosenweg]

One last post. the important thing to remember is that we live in a society. We canot exist outside of a society, autarky doesn't work. Humans by definition live in a community. That is how we get our bread and butter. That is why how the community is run is important. as far whether or not worker self management is practical, I would see there is huge evidence that when workers feel they are in control and have a stake in what they produce productivity (looked at in mainstream terms) goes way up. I have no doubt myself that communism will be a vastly more satisfying way to live.

Capitalism, what we have now, is not practical.

Also, why do you think we may have some sort of spiritual enlightenment within the next few years? What has led you to believe this?

[Pilkington]

Reptiloids? Seriously though, of course the founders of communism were connected tom the people behind capitalism. Marx was influenced by Adam Smith, Ricardo, the Scottish materialists, etc.

The thing is, its not a group of conspirators who brought us capitalism, its the material evolution of society from the Medievil ages to the present. The capitalist revolution occurred in Europe, specifically in England, for specific reasons. Marx talks about this in "The Genesis of Capitalism". A textile industry started in Flanders, feudal land owners found they could make a profit forcing their peasants to compete against one another, land gradually was "alienated" and became a commodity and feudalism made the long painful transistion to capitalism.

There possibly were other directions Europe could have gone. Murray Bookchin talked about this and William Burrough's in "Cities of the red Night" referred to this.There were religious inspired communist revolts and uprisings. The fact is a very definite capitalist revoluytion occured roughly between the 14th to the 19th century.

Apart from the fact that I don't agree with communism, I think it's all too easy to follow someone who claims to represent the people without questioning their motives. Look at the aggression from some people here. It illustrates just the kind of desperation that you'd expect from a religious fundamentalist. The desperate compulsion to get everyone to agree. I have very little trust in people who are incapable of doing their own thing and instead want everyone around them to go along with what they think is right. Just that alone is enough to make me not want to know. I don't trust anyone who comes to me with a sweaty salesman's handshake or waving some book at me, desperate to make me do what they want or believe what they want. That goes for communists, fascists, atheists, religious fundamentalists, and all the other ists.

[ComradeMan]

Apart from the fact that I don't agree with communism

You don't agree with something you admit you seem to know fuck all about?

Think about that derposaurus.

[Pilkington]

So what you're basically saying is.. you don't like me becuase I read? :rolleyes:
I doubt you will see anything I said there in a text book tho, so nice try... but your troll failed. But if you think you can find it, cite the textbook for me... assuming you have ever read anything in your life?


Would those same people by chance be "the jews?" You know, that's what people mean when they say that 9.9/10 times... that other .1 time is when they say it's reptilian aliens, which usually are Jews anyway.



You said "have you ever considered comm and cap were created by the same people" which, again, 9/10 times means the Jews created them in order to take over the world.
So in order to clear up all confusion.. just who are these people that created both capitalism and communism to divide humanity?

Well that's quite a little story you've created there. It's laughable just how little ability you have to think for yourself. Just because some racist idiots think that evil jews are behind a conspiracy, you assume that anyone who implies that there may be some dodgy stuff going on behind the scenes must be saying the same. You're a drone who has been programmed to connect the very same dots as other drones. Conspiracy theorist = jew hater. That's what you have been programmed to believe. You think you're intelligent but really you are a repeater, repeating what you have been programmed to say and think.

I'm not going to tell you who I think created both capitalism and communism. Is it because I can't? Well actually I want you to think that. I also want you to think that I'm a fascist, and if there's anything I can do to help you believe it more and more, I'm happy to oblige. I'm having a real laugh observing just how mindless one person can be.

Hey everyone, I'm a nazi.

[Nox]

Apart from the fact that I don't agree with communism, I think it's all too easy to follow someone who claims to represent the people without questioning their motives.

I think you'll find the vast majority of people here at Revleft are well educated and know what they're talking about, especially when it comes to their own beliefs.


Look at the aggression from some people here. It illustrates just the kind of desperation that you'd expect from a religious fundamentalist.

It's not aggression, it's just not taking you seriously, you come to a COMMUNIST forum and express anti-communist views, which means you're either an attention seeker, a troll, or someone trying to force your views upon others.


The desperate compulsion to get everyone to agree. I have very little trust in people who are incapable of doing their own thing and instead want everyone around them to go along with what they think is right. Just that alone is enough to make me not want to know. I don't trust anyone who comes to me with a sweaty salesman's handshake or waving some book at me, desperate to make me do what they want or believe what they want. That goes for communists, fascists, atheists, religious fundamentalists, and all the other ists.

We aren't 'forcing' other people to agree. You're the one that chose to come here and question our beliefs.

[Pilkington]

You don't agree with something you admit you seem to know fuck all about?

Think about that derposaurus.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how irritated are you? I'm guessing 6.

[Pilkington]

I think you'll find the vast majority of people here at Revleft are well educated and know what they're talking about, especially when it comes to their own beliefs.



It's not aggression, it's just not taking you seriously, you come to a COMMUNIST forum and express anti-communist views, which means you're either an attention seeker, a troll, or someone trying to force your views upon others.



We aren't 'forcing' other people to agree. You're the one that chose to come here and question our beliefs.

Examine every line that you have just written, and think about the meaning of what you're saying. See how many errors and contradictions you can spot.

[La Peur Rouge]

No. I prefer to amuse myself knowing that you are deluded. Telling you why you're all the same would spoil that.

Taking the easy way out I see, can't say I expected much more.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Pilikington, it would be easier if you could reveal a bit more about your beliefs. What do you think is the cause of capitalism? What is your alternative? You keep throwing out vague suggestions but do not follow it up. That is where the frustration of people on this thread comes from. What is your "back story"?What software are you running? Could you give an idea as to your worldview?

[ComradeMan]

I'm not going to tell you who I think created both capitalism and communism. Is it because I can't? Well actually I want you to think that. I also want you to think that I'm a fascist, and if there's anything I can do to help you believe it more and more, I'm happy to oblige. I'm having a real laugh observing just how mindless one person can be.

Capitalism wasn't "created" it wasn't an invention like the fucking vacuum cleaner.

Don't you think you are being just a bit arrogant and provocative and yet you whine like a reactionary swine when "denounced"?



Hey everyone, I'm a nazi.

In terms of brainlessness you're just as convincing.

[Pilkington]

Pilikington, it would be easier if you could reveal a bit more about your beliefs. What do you think is the cause of capitalism? What is your alternative? You keep throwing out vague suggestions but do not follow it up. That is where the frustration of people on this thread comes from. What is your "back story"?What software are you running? Could you give an idea as to your worldview?

I will, after my walk. I'll be back in half an hour.




Au revoir everyone! I'll be back soon!

[ComradeMan]

I will, after my walk. I'll be back in half an hour.
Au revoir everyone! I'll be back soon!

Take your time... please don't hurry yourself.

[Nox]

He's walking with the goose step :thumbup:

Ok that was an awful joke.

On to your response to my post, I see no contradiction whatsoever. Please point them out rather than just basically calling me stupid

[Revolution starts with U]

Well that's quite a little story you've created there. It's laughable just how little ability you have to think for yourself. Just because some racist idiots think that evil jews are behind a conspiracy, you assume that anyone who implies that there may be some dodgy stuff going on behind the scenes must be saying the same
Whether or not I "think for myself" (physically impossible) I think well.. .and it seems you don't. I never assumed that of you. I was laying out for you why Comrademan thought that of you. Try logic next time :rolleyes:

You're a drone who has been programmed to connect the very same dots as other drones. Conspiracy theorist = jew hater.
Except I never did that. You think for yourself? it's probably why you think so poorly :rolleyes:

That's what you have been programmed to believe. You think you're intelligent but really you are a repeater, repeating what you have been programmed to say and think.
As you are as well. I will literally bust a gut laughing if you suggest you thot this up yourself. It's the same old tired arguments the a/pathetic cowards bring up time and again.


I'm not going to tell you who I think created both capitalism and communism. Is it because I can't? Well actually I want you to think that. I also want you to think that I'm a fascist, and if there's anything I can do to help you believe it more and more, I'm happy to oblige. I'm having a real laugh observing just how mindless one person can be.
So you're just a poo-poo er. You believe nothing yet shit on everybody for believing anything? Your belief is that people believing is wrong?
I think it's far safer to say you are a far bigger tool than you think we are. You've bought bait, hook line and sinker. No, don't get involved friend, that will create a better world :rolleyes:
Hitler and Stalin would have loved you. You're just the kind of citizen they need to grab the reigns of society.
Tool.



Hey everyone, I'm a nazi.
Just goes to show you how piss-poor your reasoning is. Nobody called you a NAZI. NAZI's may have been fascists, not all fascists are NAZI's.

I think you don't know who created Cap and Comm. I think you've just bought the CT culture's narrative of history, and are just regurgitating it, without any regard to real history.
The only thing worse than being a tool is not knowing you are.

[praxis1966]

And with that, time for this thread to go nighty-night. Thread Closed.