About me

[efficiency]

Hello people on the left. I am not on the left. I am an American Christian who sides with the right on many issues. I do, however, believe that it would be more efficient if there was no such thing as money. I can also see the problems that capitalism causes in terms of technological and sociological progress. I realize that what is called "the American dream" is really unachievable for most people. This saddens me. I have always been deeply concerned for those who work and struggle, for the poor and the suffering.

I have never considered Marxism because it requires violence to be instituted and historically when it has it is followed by totalitarian oppression. I see ahead, a time when capitalism will be collapsing all by itself and I would see that as a good thing if it were not for the type of religious and political intolerance I have heard so much about among the revolutionary left - millions dying in gulags, only to be outdone in atrocities by the Chinese.

For whatever that was, my concern is that it may happen in the future. The past can be the past. We should learn from it, avoiding those types of pitfalls, even if we believe them to be imaginary.

I also dislike Marxism because it seems to instill hatred. I can appreciate the breaking of class distinctions and the aim for a classless society, but it seems too often to pit the proletariat against the bourgeoisie like good versus evil. Those who own businesses and land are not evil people. They are human beings just like the rest of us. Many have worked very hard to obtain what they have. They may be ignorant that there is a better way. I forgive people for ignorance.

I have also heard what seem to be some very naive things said, things that really frighten me because people are thinking that there will be change without war when, in fact, I see wars ahead, in the name of the change they are calling for as they talk about peace and a benevolent humanity evolving. I would work to find a peaceful way to achieve a better world. I'm just aware that there are those who believe it won't happen without force.

Well, that is me. If it is not appropriate for me to dialog here I'm sure the moderators will remove my membership. Otherwise, I am here to learn and I do appreciate your help.

[Yazman]

Welcome to Revleft. You might encounter resistance here every now and then if you're new to our views but just bear with it. If you find anybody is being insulting, flaming or trolling you, then let a moderator know. PM me if you see it and I'll take a look.

Also, your membership will not be removed. The only people whose memberships get removed are usually fascists and nazis. You can get restricted for holding sexist or pro-capitalist views, in which case you'll only be able to post in the Opposing Ideologies forum and it's subforums. Restricted users are able to get unrestricted, as well.

I suggest you make use of the Learning forum so you can learn as much as you can about us, because we're not a monolithic group by any means and we disagree more with each other than we do with capitalists, ridiculous as it sounds.

Personally I don't support the idea of breaking things down into "good" and "evil", and I honestly don't care for the concepts themselves. The world isn't black and white like that.

Anyway - welcome to Revleft! If you have any more questions or queries let me know.

[pax et aequalitas]

Welcome to revleft.

You seem to have a rather twisted and incorrect view of marxism I see.

Marxism does not promote excessive violence, nor does it promote totalitarian regimes. Quite to the contrary in fact.

I personally consider myself a communist, yet I oppose all authority and I oppose violence in most cases.

[Etular]

I, personally, was going to say myself that I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above that's been posted - infact, much of it I agree with (i.e. the removal of the monetary system; that our focus should include both rich and poor, proletariat and bourgeois, instead of dividing our supporters based upon class tensions and wealth; that there is no "good" and "evil" - as morality is subjective/not "black-and-white", but countless shades of grey etc.).

To elaborate, many of us agree with what you're saying to an extent (that being said, many don't :p ). I, personally, condemn the rich for not having spent their money to do more for the lower-classes, but have nothing against the rich themselves - many times even pitying them because, in my eyes, I believe that such power has corrupted or blinded them to the harsher reality outside of their little bubble.

As you say, we are all human, and we all fall for temptation - rich and poor, Socialist and Capitalist alike. I, personally, support Socialism in theory (most notably, WSM Socialism, which seeks to remove all traces of the monetary system and market system entirely), but understand that, in practice, it'll most definitely be far harder to resist the temptation offered, as well as being aware that the system is open to be abused if the wrong person gets into power (albeit, in such countries, it's often due to US influence that result in one democratic president being replaced by a dictatorial one). I, myself, would like to believe that I'd be able to resist the temptation long enough to remove such "tokens" as an incentive, and not succumb to the vast amounts of power on offer.

I just want to point out that, for the most part, us Socialists aren't all supporting of totalitarian dictatorships, cults of personality or gulags; infact, many of us claim USSR Russia, China and other such countries aren't "socialist" in their beliefs, defining such as "state capitalist" and claiming that true Socialism has yet to occur. :) I, myself, follow fairly liberal and democratic beliefs as a socialist - believing in freedom of speech etc. as long as it's not harmful to others. I would probably be defined more along the lines of being a utopian socialist, but I prefer the world "egalitarian" - as it's a word that's yet to be stigmatized by society.

Last thing worthy of mention: Religion is a fairly taboo subject on this site due to the controversy of it (as well as the general belief that it serves as a source of conflict). Whilst I, personally, have nothing against it (being a Unitarian Universalist), there will be members who do finds that it conflicts with their political ideology. Thus, it's probably best to either keep discussion of religion at a minimal or, in the very least, restrict the discussion of it to specific forums.

Also, welcome to RevLeft. :thumbup1:

[VivaValiente]

Welcome to Rev Left! I must say that I am quite happy to see someone who understands the contradiction in promoting class tensions/class overthrow. In most cases, as you point out, this has only perpetuated conflict and ideological divisions.

Like you, I would also prefer a world without money. It is an idea that many on the left fail to have a vision of.


As Yazman said, you might encounter resistance now and then. In some instances, it will be because of the skewed perception people have of Christians and Christianity. Many confuse certain Christians of back then with Christians today. Others just base their perception on bad personal experiences they have had with religion. I, however, would like to see more Christians join the community because their values, ideas, and ethics could be of conducive and critical use to political thought.

Anyhow, I hope you find others you can get into dialogues with in peace. I hope you will find others who can promote or change your thinking in positive ways. Welcome!

[Spetsnaz]

Hello people on the left. I am not on the left. I am an American Christian who sides with the right on many issues. I do, however, believe that it would be more efficient if there was no such thing as money. I can also see the problems that capitalism causes in terms of technological and sociological progress. I realize that what is called "the American dream" is really unachievable for most people. This saddens me. I have always been deeply concerned for those who work and struggle, for the poor and the suffering.

I have never considered Marxism because it requires violence to be instituted and historically when it has it is followed by totalitarian oppression. I see ahead, a time when capitalism will be collapsing all by itself and I would see that as a good thing if it were not for the type of religious and political intolerance I have heard so much about among the revolutionary left - millions dying in gulags, only to be outdone in atrocities by the Chinese.

For whatever that was, my concern is that it may happen in the future. The past can be the past. We should learn from it, avoiding those types of pitfalls, even if we believe them to be imaginary.

I also dislike Marxism because it seems to instill hatred. I can appreciate the breaking of class distinctions and the aim for a classless society, but it seems too often to pit the proletariat against the bourgeoisie like good versus evil. Those who own businesses and land are not evil people. They are human beings just like the rest of us. Many have worked very hard to obtain what they have. They may be ignorant that there is a better way. I forgive people for ignorance.

I have also heard what seem to be some very naive things said, things that really frighten me because people are thinking that there will be change without war when, in fact, I see wars ahead, in the name of the change they are calling for as they talk about peace and a benevolent humanity evolving. I would work to find a peaceful way to achieve a better world. I'm just aware that there are those who believe it won't happen without force.

Well, that is me. If it is not appropriate for me to dialog here I'm sure the moderators will remove my membership. Otherwise, I am here to learn and I do appreciate your help.

Based on the post with which you began this thread I believe you will be a Marxist before too long. :lol:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

[

Welcome!


Hello people on the left. I am not on the left. I am an American Christian who sides with the right on many issues. I do, however, believe that it would be more efficient if there was no such thing as money.

Agree, but how would you define "efficiency"? The economist Rick Wolf did a good analysis of this. It is extremely difficult to define "efficiency". This term is often used as a mantra by capitalists to really mean "maximize profits". Its impossible to be value neutral.Most socialists don't think in terms of efficiency but satisfying human needs.




I can also see the problems that capitalism causes in terms of technological and sociological progress. I realize that what is called "the American dream" is really unachievable for most people. This saddens me. I have always been deeply concerned for those who work and struggle, for the poor and the suffering. I couldn't agree more.


I have never considered Marxism because it requires violence to be instituted and historically when it has it is followed by totalitarian oppression. I see ahead, a time when capitalism will be collapsing all by itself and I would see that as a good thing if it were not for the type of religious and political intolerance I have heard so much about among the revolutionary left - millions dying in gulags, only to be outdone in atrocities by the Chinese.

For whatever that was, my concern is that it may happen in the future. The past can be the past. We should learn from it, avoiding those types of pitfalls, even if we believe them to be imaginary.

Very good points. A full answer could take many paragraphs. In a nutshell Marxists see capitalism itself as a very violent system. An alternative is a society beyond the rule of capital, a society run by the producers themselves, i.e. socialism. Capitalism cannot collapse by itself, it needs a push. The system did come close to collapsing-Italy, Germany, other places, 1918-1923, France 1968, many other examples but the system was able to re stabilize itself.The working class was not ready to take power, although it came very close. In 68 DeGaulle waa seriously scared. He feared socialist revolution and fled to Germany.He was ready to have NATO troops march in to restore capitalism. The revolution was diffused because of the social democrats and stalinists.

Every time socialism has been attempted it has been viscously attacked. Spain, Germany, Russia. Many of us oppose Stalinism, Maoism and similar systems as obscene caricatures of socialism. This resulted from the rise of a new ruling class on the ashes of what were essentially defeated revolutions. It is important though to recognize that there have been advantages to a planned economy. Russia was a very primitive Third World country before the Revolution. Within ten years Russia became a modern industrial country, although at fearsome human cost.


I also dislike Marxism because it seems to instill hatred. I can appreciate the breaking of class distinctions and the aim for a classless society, but it seems too often to pit the proletariat against the bourgeoisie like good versus evil. Those who own businesses and land are not evil people. They are human beings just like the rest of us. Many have worked very hard to obtain what they have. They may be ignorant that there is a better way. I forgive people for ignorance. The proletarian and bourgeois are already pitted against each other by the nature of capitalism. Marxists did not invent class struggle, they merely analyze it and attempt to point a way out of the situation.Capitalists themselves have no control over the system, its chaotic by definition.US corporate law requires a board of directors to make desicions that will maximize short term profitability. Capitalism is amoral by its very definition. I have nothing against small business owners, I used to be one myself. Capitalism though encourages and reinforces an egocentric, narcisstic, mentality. Large numbers of upper level corporate managers tare,o put it bluntly, viscious sociopaths.The system creates this.


I have also heard what seem to be some very naive things said, things that really frighten me because people are thinking that there will be change without war when, in fact, I see wars ahead, in the name of the change they are calling for as they talk about peace and a benevolent humanity evolving. I would work to find a peaceful way to achieve a better world. I'm just aware that there are those who believe it won't happen without force.

Well, that is me. If it is not appropriate for me to dialog here I'm sure the moderators will remove my membership. Otherwise, I am here to learn and I do appreciate your help.Very beautiful sentiments and I don't totally disagree.I hate violence myself. We already do have many wars created by capitalism-Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, etc. The system is imploding and more and more people will suffer.

Its a myth that Marxism is based on hatred and violence. It isn't.I've struggled with pacifism myself.Capitalism already is a hideously violent barbaric system. Strict pacifism just won't work and isn't logical.Even Gandhi advocated war when necessary.

FWIW I hope this helps.

[efficiency]

Thank you all for your replies. As far as my Christianity goes, I do understand that there are a plethora of ideas about it, often very emotional and confused. It is not what I came here to discuss, but do need to mention it as I encounter a diverse group that, whether they agree with certain historical practices or not, has been associated with the elimination of religion, even systematically. I'm sure some will also see that perception as a form of historical revision. As I said, whatever has happened in the past, no matter how we interpret it or what is true or false in the reports, what must concern us all is the future.

I joined the "State Capitalist" group because it is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that there have been money systems in Cuba, in the USSR and in China, and elsewhere where the name socialism or communism has been attached. There has been an egalitarian effort but not a money-less society in any of these. Has there? It is an important point to make because it counters the claim, particularly from the political right, with which I tend to be in agreement, that communism has been tried and has been proven a failure.

In my observation, it has not been tried at all anywhere in history except in one place - the family. As I see it, every family is a micro-communist entity that proves not only that the model is possible, but that it is given by natural design as a sign of how we were created to live. You might see how this would fit in with my sense of what a Creator wants just as easily as you could see it from the perspective of an evolutionist.

Even though I associate more with the right than the left, my faith is not the same as that of capitalist Christians. I'm not here to preach. I do, however, think that a genuine Christianity is much less incompatible with some of the ideas many here are likely to espouse than might first be supposed. I'm not talking about the practice of the first disciples of sharing all their possessions. I am a theologian whose thought goes much deeper than that. I am talking about economic justice fitting in with a general kingdom promise that every tear will be wiped from our eyes. This is something that pertains not just to a hope in a future resurrection that serves as an "opiate of the people", but to anyone who prays that such a kingdom would come on earth even as it is in heaven. It is a prayer for the earth - the here and now.

As consciousness evolves concerning economic justice so does theology. Slavery was at times thought acceptable among the religious. We have already seen the evolution of consciousness among Christians and other faith groups in the abandonment of slavery so why not the abandonment of capitalism? I don't think that a higher understanding of the call to a money-less society and inherently more efficient economy that is no longer blockaded by the greedy and the powerful is impossible for the majority of those holding to most religions. Especially considering this, I urge tolerance in any vision, in any government. The individuals leading religious institutions profit in some ways from the capitalist system, but actually finances are more of a bane to the expression of faith than a boon, particularly when the amount of effort to feed the poor, provide shelter and education are considered. I can't recall ever entering a church that was satisfied with what it could do for the poor or the needy. It's only limitation was the capitalist system which directly blocked its goals and inner-longings for a better world. This is not to say that there were any I recall suggesting a money-less alternative. For the majority a money-less system remains inconceivable. I believe this may change in the coming decades as the worldwide economy crumbles.

What I would like to do, is find resources here that will put numbers behind my ideas. I suspect anecdotally that the number of jobs that are currently dedicated to supporting the necessities of the capitalist system but don't produce any real goods or services that better the quality of living beyond that is probably greater than half of the total work force, possibly as much as 80 or 90%. I would like a precise figure. Is there a resource that shows a study on this?

[efficiency]

Agree, but how would you define "efficiency"? The economist Rick Wolf did a good analysis of this. It is extremely difficult to define "efficiency". This term is often used as a mantra by capitalists to really mean "maximize profits". Its impossible to be value neutral.Most socialists don't think in terms of efficiency but satisfying human needs.
I define "efficiency" as more effective means of increasing the quality of life and satisfying human needs. I'm not thinking of corporate profits. Money-less societies would have no profits beyond the satisfaction of filling human needs for self or others.


... In a nutshell Marxists see capitalism itself as a very violent system. An alternative is a society beyond the rule of capital, a society run by the producers themselves, i.e. socialism. Capitalism cannot collapse by itself, it needs a push. The system did come close to collapsing-Italy, Germany, other places, 1918-1923, France 1968, many other examples but the system was able to re stabilize itself.The working class was not ready to take power, although it came very close. In 68 DeGaulle waa seriously scared. He feared socialist revolution and fled to Germany.He was ready to have NATO troops march in to restore capitalism. The revolution was diffused because of the social democrats and stalinists.

Every time socialism has been attempted it has been viciously attacked. Spain, Germany, Russia. Many of us oppose Stalinism, Maoism and similar systems as obscene caricatures of socialism.This resulted from the rise of a new ruling class on the ashes ...
Despite my leanings to the right (not any radical right), I have always understood capitalism to be inherently arbitrary, self-serving and amoral, in some cases even violent, as you say. I have also heard from its apologists and understand the complexity of such arguments. Additionally, I have both attempted to survive through wage earning and through the creation of small businesses that I thought would have a positive net effect in terms of benefiting both common people and business owners.

Designing and imagining such business enterprises requires much creativity and is met with a practical problem inherent in the capitalist economy: venture capitalists and angel investors tend to take control of such companies if they succeed. In the end, they are no longer ruled by the benevolent but become entirely self-serving. Maintaining control over a company because I have specific ideas about what good could be done with profits, or plan to deliberately reduce profits in order to accomplish more with the business processes themselves, is nearly impossible without sufficient start up capital.

Because of my faith, no doubt, I haven't given up. My natural inventiveness continues to come up with solutions. My personal experience contradicts the notion that capitalism is amoral by nature at least when it is moral people in control. Profit is necessary but not the purpose of every enterprise, nor its definition of success - not when it is in the hands of someone who does not define success with a bottom line, such as myself. Unfortunately, most do define it that way. Of course, if I choose to tie my hands behind my back by making something moral of the inherently amoral as I attempt to do the already almost impossible I most certainly am the exception rather than the rule. My personal experience, therefore, has little or no bearing on the validity of your statement. What might be valid is some of the arguments I have heard from those on the right with respect to the inherent morality of capitalist exchange, where agreements are made consensually because of mutual benefit only as standing up and above the immorality of not only the violent usurpation of property by governments and egalitarians who did not ever work to obtain such.



The proletarian and bourgeois are already pitted against each other by the nature of capitalism. Marxists did not invent class struggle, they merely analyze it and attempt to point a way out of the situation.
I would hope that all Marxists were mere analysts with solutions but that would be inconsistent both with my experience of human nature generally, which is naturally covetous, jealous, envious, spite-filled, glutinous, self-serving and even avaricious when enabled, and with the language I have seen in much of the literature of the left, which so often depicts the pointing of a middle finger and disdainful epithets like the word "pig." Undoubtedly, there is a mixture of purist and rage-aholic in your midst. The unfortunate reality is that it will probably be the most passionate and controlling that leads. These will most likely fall into the less than purely analytical category.


Capitalists themselves have no control over the system, it's chaotic by definition.
True. And that goes both ways. Does it not? Even the name "anarchist" is being employed. There is no moral plan. There is no plan at all. There is a hope that a future government will make things better after there is a change in who controls the means of production. Some don't even believe in government at all. Everyone will just suddenly start choosing to do what is best for the common good. Good luck with that!


It's a myth that Marxism is based on hatred and violence. It isn't. I've struggled with pacifism myself. Capitalism already is a hideously violent barbaric system. Strict pacifism just won't work and isn't logical.Even Gandhi advocated war when necessary.

FWIW I hope this helps.
It sounds here like you would justify violence based on the level of violence you believe currently exists on account of capitalism. No? I am not a pacifist. I believe in self-defense if necessary. I believe that in some cases this needs to be preemptive. What I sense is that there are both those on the side of the left and on the right that are anxious to "push" their vision. In Marxism, isn't this what is referred to as "praxis?" It's a little bit like the word "jihad" - has both physical and nonphysical implications. Adherents can hide behind both interpretations any time they want.

Thanks again for your thoughts:). Just introducing myself here.

[Commissar Rykov]

Welcome to the board and since you seem to have some typical propagandist views of Marxism I figure I will dispel it with some free reading.

http://marxists.org/

Enjoy.:)

[efficiency]

Welcome to the board and since you seem to have some typical propagandist views of Marxism I figure I will dispel it with some free reading.

http: // marxists. org

Enjoy.:)Thank you for the welcome. While I am certainly interested in the link, the first impression I have is that there are more words than I have time to read (keep in mind that counting the company I am attempting to start up, I have two full time jobs that require 80-100 hours/week of my time). Pointing me to a library doesn't necessarily "fix" me, should you see problems.

Your statement also leaves me with an impression. It seems you contrast Marxist views against propagandist views. Do you hold that in Marxism there is no propaganda or no propagandists? If so this is the opposite from my personal experience. While there are some exceptions, such as CIA efforts during the Kennedy administration and earlier cold war times where the United States had anticommunist propaganda efforts, it has been my experience that it is among socialists that practically all of the propaganda has been emanating for as long as I remember both during that same period and since. It is the left that has had dominance over the media, very deliberately so, in almost every country. Only recently did the right have any influence, primarily on radio. Are there not many who have followed through on Lenin's statement, "an idea is worth a thousand bullets?"

Rather than speaking of my ideas as "typically propagandist" and throwing an entire library at me, as if that might persuade me to think in the same terms you do, you would perhaps have an effect on me if you addressed each idea independently, showing me why it is invalid or twisted in any way. As it stands, when I read through these forums and read through the articles and literature provided, it is not changing my opinions, but validating them so far.

Most importantly, I have asked for hard numbers to show how many jobs are dedicated and intrinsic to or required by the monetary/capitalist system. What percentage of the total work force is wasting their time shuffling paper or providing "service" that is not a real human service beyond servicing money or protection of private property rights? Surely there is some hard data behind this - a simple definitive answer that is not just anecdotal. So far no one has shown me any link or resource. In introducing myself I have stated that this is what I came here to find out. I thought there might be someone here that would know. I find it impossible to believe that no such data exists considering so many have given their lives to effect a system that would better capitalism. In your library do you have a specific resource that spells that out? I am confident that it must be there. Please point me to it. Thanks!

[OHumanista]

Welcome despite of your views :)(some are pretty good like the money part)
As for learning about the left well, I think there is much to see and no need to rush.
And when we say propagandist we just mean most views of the left come from what a capitalist society tells us to believe, so it is biased because an idea that goes against the whole way this society work won't be presented as a good thing in it.

Then on hard data, I am sure someone will send you something.:)

[Dumb]

Your statement also leaves me with an impression. It seems you contrast Marxist views against propagandist views. Do you hold that in Marxism there is no propaganda or no propagandists? If so this is the opposite from my personal experience. While there are some exceptions, such as CIA efforts during the Kennedy administration and earlier cold war times where the United States had anticommunist propaganda efforts, it has been my experience that it is among socialists that practically all of the propaganda has been emanating for as long as I remember both during that same period and since. It is the left that has had dominance over the media, very deliberately so, in almost every country. Only recently did the right have any influence, primarily on radio. Are there not many who have followed through on Lenin's statement, "an idea is worth a thousand bullets?"

You're probably buying into the "liberal media" meme, but even if the media does have a liberal bias, that has nothing to do with us. Liberals want to reform the market ever so slightly, if at all, whereas we want to eliminate the market altogether.

Political discussions can be very difficult at times because many people can't even agree on what basic terms mean. If you're a Republican, socialism is the income tax; if you're any other American, socialism is probably Social Security and/or single-payer health care. The "type" of socialism you will see on this site, however, remains true to the term in its Marxist sense: an ideology promoting the elimination of capital and the state, leading to a classless society in which the means of production are controlled by workers/the working class/communities/whateveryougettheideabynow. This is what we mean by "left," "leftism," or "socialism."

I cannot think of a time when people like us ever "had dominance over the media" in any country, let alone today. In many countries, particularly in the English-speaking world and especially in the U.S.A., we are a tiny (and arguably irrelevant) minority that only gets attention when somebody in the media wants to use us a boogeyman.

I will not deny that you will see anti-capitalist propaganda amongst the left, but at the same time you will probably gain a clearer understanding of capitalism here than in most other venues. There's a lot more propaganda about us than by us.

Long story short: there's a difference between liberals and leftists. The two groups agree on nothing.

[efficiency]

You're probably buying into the "liberal media" meme, but even if the media does have a liberal bias, that has nothing to do with us.There is no question the media has a liberal bias. It's not just something I buy into but observe daily. Polls and stats among media personalities also show emperically that a full 95% of journalists and news personalities in the US are Democrats. Fox News is considered "far right" and not real news by many people, but is actually the only station that has anything approaching a 50% balance, hence their motto, which is subject to ridicule.


Liberals want to reform the market ever so slightly, if at all, whereas we want to eliminate the market altogether.Yes, I can certainly appreciate the difference. That is why I don't think true socialists should associate with the left. Certainly they are not on the right either but really they don't fit into any category. The name "rev left" seems inappropriate.


Political discussions can be very difficult at times because many people can't even agree on what basic terms mean. If you're a Republican, socialism is the income tax; if you're any other American, socialism is probably Social Security and/or single-payer health care. The "type" of socialism you will see on this site, however, remains true to the term in its Marxist sense: an ideology promoting the elimination of capital and the state, leading to a classless society in which the means of production are controlled by workers/the working class/communities/whateveryougettheideabynow. This is what we mean by "left," "leftism," or "socialism."
If only that was meant by "left" by those on the American left. Unfortunately, they want to keep the monetary system, which ensures the injustices they are marching against will continue. I suppose you think in terms of extremes. So to reduce disparities is to be a little to the left, whereas to eliminate disparities entirely through classlessness is to be truly on the left. I am here, quite on the right, and totally supportive of freedom from capitalism, but I wouldn't call myself a socialist, because this is associated with state capitalism, it is just a transference of control and ownership of business and the means of production to the state. To me, that is a step in the wrong direction. It is better to leap over to a resource based economy from a vibrant free market. I didn't used to think this would be possible but the tremendous accumulated debt in the US may be a pathway. I have long suspected that some very intelligent people wanted to push the liberal agenda because they knew it would result in spending so much money that it would bankrupt the country and force a radical solution - namely a whole new system. In the end this could be a good thing. Obama took a bad economy and made it worse by spending more than we ever have rather than trimming expenses. The people who control him knew what they were doing.


I cannot think of a time when people like us ever "had dominance over the media" in any country, let alone today. In many countries, particularly in the English-speaking world and especially in the U.S.A., we are a tiny (and arguably irrelevant) minority that only gets attention when somebody in the media wants to use us a boogeyman.Yes, you are entirely right about that. I suspect that there are some very intelligent people in your midst, however, who plant ideas into the media because the media is on the left and the Marxists see themselves also as being on the left. The Occupy Wall Street effort seems to be an example. Vaguely they want "economic justice." You want classlessness, but they are content with reducing the wages of CEOs. They fail to see what a drop in the bucket that is because they are sold on the Democratic platform. They think they've won something if they can get a Democrat elected in 2012. They want to increase taxes on the wealthy. They fail to see that this won't fix the economy. The ship is sinking. That won't stop them from protesting and believing in it. Their narrowness amazes me.


I will not deny that you will see anti-capitalist propaganda amongst the left, but at the same time you will probably gain a clearer understanding of capitalism here than in most other venues. There's a lot more propaganda about us than by us.I can see why you feel that way. You're right.


Long story short: there's a difference between liberals and leftists. The two groups agree on nothing.I see how you are using the term "leftist" here. I just don't think the term "left" is useful.

I am not a Marxist but probably agree with you more than American liberals do on the matters that are most central to thoughts concerning capitalism and economic justice that Marx held and I am on the American right. It seems to me that it would be more useful to describe yourself as a Marxist if that is what you are than a leftist. To be a liberal is not to be a Marxist but to be used by Marxists to accomplish the Marxist agenda.

On the political spectrum there is also the far right. The imaginary extremes place fascism at the farthest point to the right. This is something else that confuses me. I know that most Marxists are anarchists, but this claim is inconsistent with what history shows where communism has been tried. The USSR was a dictatorship that seems entirely fascist to me. So is Cuba. So was China under Mao. Fascism, as I see it, is where authorities impose their views on the people. If you believed in God in Russia you were eliminated. If you had anything Western in China, you weren't part of the cultural revolution. You were eliminated. If you weren't a Marxist you were considered a subversive and put in prison. Belief in God is non-Marxist, therefore subversive. Criticizing the state is considered subversive. Fascism is state enforced intolerance. I don't think it is useful to place fascism on the extreme right and communism on the extreme left. This seems to me to be an exercise in good cop/bad cop. The good cop insists that Marxism is about peace and anarchy. The bad cop then comes in wielding a police force and a military. and turns the means of production by the workers over to the new government, which after much bloodshed is no better than the previous one.

The result is a sort of double-speak. You believe Marxism to be anarchist. You've read the literature. You see anything that resembles what I'm describing as at variance with Marxism. Whatever may be said about what happened in the USSR or China or Cuba you either deny or dismiss as irrelevant. Meanwhile, these are the most prominent real world examples. The ideal you believe in, which Marx taught, has still never been put into practice.

[Seresan]

My beliefs were almost exactly the same as what you said there a little while ago... Though I've opened up my mind a bit more and re-thought a thing or two. I try not to call myself a "person who agrees with Marx and Trotsky on many subjects" rather than a Marxist or a Trotskyist.

I hope you enjoy your stay!

[efficiency]

My beliefs were almost exactly the same as what you said there a little while ago... Though I've opened up my mind a bit more and re-thought a thing or two. I try not to call myself a "person who agrees with Marx and Trotsky on many subjects" rather than a Marxist or a Trotskyist.

I hope you enjoy your stay!You used a double negative so I'm not sure you said what you meant. I'm not an anything. I'm a me. Maybe I can tell you or someone here what I believe and then I can get a label for it.


I understand that capitalism inherently tends to exploitation of workers.
I understand that life sucks for most people, and a few can let their money work for them. This creates a lot of angst.
I understand that the trend is toward even greater disparity.
The disproportionate prosperity of the wealthy doesn't bother me in the least. I am happy for the wealthy. It is the worker's sucky life that concerns me.
I believe that a money or trade system is both inefficient and destructive to the environment. It also prevents new enterprises from being chanced that might not be "profitable." That is why we don't all have solar powered cars, right now, for instance. Who would pay for the solar chargers where all current gas stations are? Capitalism prevents such progress.
I believe crime could drop dramatically in a money/trade-less society.
I believe in tolerance of beliefs.
I am a Christian but I believe in tolerance of lifestyles. It is not the government's job to regulate how people live. That is a choice.
I am not an anarchist. I believe in having a government.
I believe in creating a database human needs and availabililty so people will know how to improve society and can find work.
I believe in a system of merits. Those who do undesirable types of work, like work at night, or work in sewers and pick up garbage, or work in mines or who perform surgery deserve a special thank you in the form of second homes, longer vacations and nicer cars than the rest.
I believe that a simple web site could manage what types of jobs deserve such privileges.
I believe in keeping such a system accountable by having neighbors report if anyone is hoarding and coworkers reporting if anyone is not actually doing the work they are assigned.
I believe that work should be easy and unstressful.
I understand that there are many, possibly a majority of jobs are a waste of human resource and could be converted over in a money/trade-less society into jobs that produce actual goods or services that improve people's lives. These same people would probably find this much more fulfilling. In the database system I am proposing each person gets to do the type of work they want to. Economics no longer rules it.
Writers and artists who stay at home get an underprivilege, not as nice a home, sorry to say. Who doesn't want to sit on their butt and write a book?
I believe in industry being contiued as the means of production is transferred to workers, but transformed as money is no longer the motive of operation, but rather the need for goods and services.
I believe in democratic rule by the people and for the people. Government workers are in charge of police operations and fulfilling the expressed will of the voters. Elected officials have no special privilege. It's just a job like anything else.

All that said, I think there are fascists on the left that would disallow tolerance of religion. I would want to know that control could not be seized by that kind of person. I want a peaceful transition, as well but know that militant types are likely to gain power as the process of defeating the pockets of capitalism that remain after its own inner-collapse occurs. I dread a military world coup that results in crap leadership that would prevent much of the above from being accomplished. In addition to all this I am a Christian and I believe that abortion is an inherantly capitalist act in which a person takes ownership of someone else's life calling it their own body (read: property) and utterly dehumanizing "it." I recognize I would probably be in a minority on this issue in a post-revolutionary world so abortion would both be performed and made legal, maybe even a privileged form of work to perform. Sucks that so few understand.

OKay. That's what I believe. So what am I?

[efficiency]

Nobody replied so I guess I'm just a "me." I have a name. I'll reserve sharing that for the moment. Maybe I can start my own "ism"

Best wishes to you all. Thank you very much for your welcomes. They do make me feel comfortable here.:)

[Parvati]

Hi and Welcome Comrade!

[Apoi_Viitor]

OKay. That's what I believe. So what am I?

A Peter Joseph(ist) or Jacque Fresco(ist).

[Leftsolidarity]

Fox News is considered "far right" and not real news by many people, but is actually the only station that has anything approaching a 50% balance, hence their motto, which is subject to ridicule.



I don't agree with your views on really anything but I respect that because you seem like you are willing to listen.

But that ^ is just down right silly :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Savior]

There is no question the media has a liberal bias. It's not just something I buy into but observe daily. Polls and stats among media personalities also show emperically that a full 95% of journalists and news personalities in the US are Democrats. Fox News is considered "far right" and not real news by many people, but is actually the only station that has anything approaching a 50% balance, hence their motto, which is subject to ridicule.

Yes, I can certainly appreciate the difference. That is why I don't think true socialists should associate with the left. Certainly they are not on the right either but really they don't fit into any category. The name "rev left" seems inappropriate.


If only that was meant by "left" by those on the American left. Unfortunately, they want to keep the monetary system, which ensures the injustices they are marching against will continue. I suppose you think in terms of extremes. So to reduce disparities is to be a little to the left, whereas to eliminate disparities entirely through classlessness is to be truly on the left. I am here, quite on the right, and totally supportive of freedom from capitalism, but I wouldn't call myself a socialist, because this is associated with state capitalism, it is just a transference of control and ownership of business and the means of production to the state. To me, that is a step in the wrong direction. It is better to leap over to a resource based economy from a vibrant free market. I didn't used to think this would be possible but the tremendous accumulated debt in the US may be a pathway. I have long suspected that some very intelligent people wanted to push the liberal agenda because they knew it would result in spending so much money that it would bankrupt the country and force a radical solution - namely a whole new system. In the end this could be a good thing. Obama took a bad economy and made it worse by spending more than we ever have rather than trimming expenses. The people who control him knew what they were doing.

Yes, you are entirely right about that. I suspect that there are some very intelligent people in your midst, however, who plant ideas into the media because the media is on the left and the Marxists see themselves also as being on the left. The Occupy Wall Street effort seems to be an example. Vaguely they want "economic justice." You want classlessness, but they are content with reducing the wages of CEOs. They fail to see what a drop in the bucket that is because they are sold on the Democratic platform. They think they've won something if they can get a Democrat elected in 2012. They want to increase taxes on the wealthy. They fail to see that this won't fix the economy. The ship is sinking. That won't stop them from protesting and believing in it. Their narrowness amazes me.

I can see why you feel that way. You're right.

I see how you are using the term "leftist" here. I just don't think the term "left" is useful.

I am not a Marxist but probably agree with you more than American liberals do on the matters that are most central to thoughts concerning capitalism and economic justice that Marx held and I am on the American right. It seems to me that it would be more useful to describe yourself as a Marxist if that is what you are than a leftist. To be a liberal is not to be a Marxist but to be used by Marxists to accomplish the Marxist agenda.

On the political spectrum there is also the far right. The imaginary extremes place fascism at the farthest point to the right. This is something else that confuses me. I know that most Marxists are anarchists, but this claim is inconsistent with what history shows where communism has been tried. The USSR was a dictatorship that seems entirely fascist to me. So is Cuba. So was China under Mao. Fascism, as I see it, is where authorities impose their views on the people. If you believed in God in Russia you were eliminated. If you had anything Western in China, you weren't part of the cultural revolution. You were eliminated. If you weren't a Marxist you were considered a subversive and put in prison. Belief in God is non-Marxist, therefore subversive. Criticizing the state is considered subversive. Fascism is state enforced intolerance. I don't think it is useful to place fascism on the extreme right and communism on the extreme left. This seems to me to be an exercise in good cop/bad cop. The good cop insists that Marxism is about peace and anarchy. The bad cop then comes in wielding a police force and a military. and turns the means of production by the workers over to the new government, which after much bloodshed is no better than the previous one.

The result is a sort of double-speak. You believe Marxism to be anarchist. You've read the literature. You see anything that resembles what I'm describing as at variance with Marxism. Whatever may be said about what happened in the USSR or China or Cuba you either deny or dismiss as irrelevant. Meanwhile, these are the most prominent real world examples. The ideal you believe in, which Marx taught, has still never been put into practice.

You should read more of these forums for one. Facism is a movement fuled by xenophobia among other things. and its the reaction the the Petit-bourgeois to the losses during a slump in economic activity (a Depression, or recession, as more and more of the Petit-bourgeois are turned into proles (Can only sell their labour power, and do not own a means of production). The "communist" countries were degenerated workers states. The Soviet Union was a degenerated workers state as the workers help political power, but then it was lost. China, East Germany and the others were deformed workers states (workers never held political power, and some of those governments were installed from the outside) It seems your still influenced by conservatism. the media is not controlled by "Liberals" (Its not Liberals and Conservatives, as their is both in each other the party) The media is own by a select few corportations. They serve the different parts of the bourgeois. I'm a libertarian communist myself. Consider reading the theoretical works of them (Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky is a good place to start, also some anarchist works aswell_ before you make a judgement.

[efficiency]

A Peter Joseph(ist) or Jacque Fresco(ist).
OK. I'll admit I like Peter Joseph's monetary market analysis. But ...

I've got some pretty serious differences. I'm a Christian for one. Both of these ridicule religion and believe it will fall away with advancements in science. I'm not comfortable with anarchism for two. Best as I can see both of them believe in having no state. That perplexes me. I can't see TVP without technocratic rule, if not fascism. Quite frankly, they scare the hec out of me. I don't believe George Busch blew up the World Trade Center. I do believe there is such a thing as Al Qaida, for three and four.

I think I'll need another name. I was thinking "Spiritual Communist." I did some look ups on that though. It seems the term is already taken.

[efficiency]

You should read more of these forums for one. Facism is a movement fuled by xenophobia among other things. and its the reaction the the Petit-bourgeois to the losses during a slump in economic activity (a Depression, or recession, as more and more of the Petit-bourgeois are turned into proles (Can only sell their labour power, and do not own a means of production). The "communist" countries were degenerated workers states. The Soviet Union was a degenerated workers state as the workers help political power, but then it was lost. China, East Germany and the others were deformed workers states (workers never held political power, and some of those governments were installed from the outside) It seems your still influenced by conservatism. the media is not controlled by "Liberals" (Its not Liberals and Conservatives, as their is both in each other the party) The media is own by a select few corportations. They serve the different parts of the bourgeois. I'm a libertarian communist myself. Consider reading the theoretical works of them (Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky is a good place to start, also some anarchist works aswell_ before you make a judgement.

Thank you for those thoughts. Let me ask you this. Do you think that a degenearted or deformed workers' state is inevitable? Is it possible to move directly to a workers' state without it degenerating? Where was the failure in the transition from Lenin to Stalin? Was there ever a point in which the degenerated workers state became regenerated? What would be required to transform a degenerated workers' state into a regenerated one?

[Azraella]

Nobody replied so I guess I'm just a "me." I have a name. I'll reserve sharing that for the moment. Maybe I can start my own "ism"

Best wishes to you all. Thank you very much for your welcomes. They do make me feel comfortable here.:)


You sound nice. I have no problem with the religious, and I'm a religious anarchist myself. I don't agree with your views on social issues(I'm much more left on those), but I really hope you become a communist.

I simply cannot support a capitalist or statist system.

[Savior]

Thank you for those thoughts. Let me ask you this. Do you think that a degenearted or deformed workers' state is inevitable? Is it possible to move directly to a workers' state without it degenerating? Where was the failure in the transition from Lenin to Stalin? Was there ever a point in which the degenerated workers state became regenerated? What would be required to transform a degenerated workers' state into a regenerated one?

i believe that a workers state is possible in a advanced capitalist nation. The nations that were degenerated workers state (the Soviet union) didnt have that much industry and the revolutions failed in germany and france. if they would have succeeded then they would have came and joined with Russia. It will only degenerate due to outside forces (such as that most of the world was capitalist and was sending troops to intervene in the russian civil war), and lack of advanced industry If enough of the world undergoes revolution, and the political power is vested in the working class then it wont degenerate.

[El brody]

Hello my actual name is Gustavo Arismendi and I'm from the Bronx, NY. I love playing soccer studying. I go for man utd, Chivas de Guadalajara, boca juniors, barca, new york red bulls.

[Leftsolidarity]

Hello my actual name is Gustavo Arismendi and I'm from the Bronx, NY. I love playing soccer studying. I go for man utd, Chivas de Guadalajara, boca juniors, barca, new york red bulls.

If you're being truthful you should edit out your name. It's not good to post that stuff.

[Zealot]

Welcome, obviously I'm a so-called "Stalinist". I support the legacy of Stalin so any questions just ask :)

FYI, the Cultural Revolution in China was actually a grass-roots movement to uproot the old oppressive system and against the new government who were instituting capitalist reforms, Mao supported it and eventually they put him back into power. One of the great things in that movement was their demand for freedom of speech (also supported by Mao), hope that lays this myth to rest.

Marxism does not require violence to be put into practice. In fact, the Russian Revolution was actually quite peaceful it was only the civil war that ensued that was violent. There's a reason that revolutions are usually violent, whether bourgeois revolutions or Marxist. The old ruling elites are not going to go down without a fight and if you think that they will then you haven't been paying attention lately to the "Arab Spring". It's as simple as that, we would like to be peaceful but at the end of the day things are going to get violent because THEY are going to get violent and we are prepared to accept this for the emancipation of humanity.

We disdain landowners and capitalists ("business owners" as you put it) because the foundation of their wealth lies in the exploitation of others. Often they aren't ignorant of this fact and know it very well. When workers commit suicide because of their working conditions, conditions made so as to be more "efficient" and save money, they know very well that this was caused because of their harsh business practices for the accumulation of capital. It really is no better than slavery at a theoretical level.

We dislike religion because historically it has been used to keep the elites in power. Marx called it the "Opium of the people" because it's used as a sort of release for people under the exploitation mentioned above. You only need to look at Bush for an example, how he justified his Iraq invasion because "God told him to do it". Leaders always get quick support when they say something about religion and that's what we mean when we say religion is used to keep people oppressed. Now, you're free to believe as you want as long as it isn't used to hinder the liberation of people but at the same time I hope you understand why a lot of Marxists don't like it.

[efficiency]

You sound nice. I have no problem with the religious, and I'm a religious anarchist myself. I don't agree with your views on social issues(I'm much more left on those), but I really hope you become a communist.

I simply cannot support a capitalist or statist system.

I would call myself a communist if it didn't come with so much leftist baggage, anti-religion, anti-idealism, class disdain. I realize these are not all necessarily part of real Marxist-Lenninism, but I feel some of the comments I've been reading seem to affirm that such baggage exists. Class conflict is scientific. it's a fact. Disdain is an attitude. That's different. No question, money should not be a part of anyone's life. I think I have good solutions for making a peaceful transition to a money-less society that is a cross between a technocracy and a worker's federation of states.

here, I'm not sure if I'm using the term "technocracy" properly so I should say what I mean. I mean that a computer system should determine policy through multiple state democracies, a system of voting, federating, law making, building, sharing and finding opportunities for creative fulfillment and contribution. The system guides distribution and restricts overuse of resources where resources may be limited. It's technical and it it the primary rule so that is why I call it a "technocracy." It is not a "technocracy" because an elite group of geeks with special knowledge exploit anyone. If that is what that term means then I don't believe in technocracy.

I am with you too. I simply cannot support a capitalist system. I do, however, support a state system in so far as it helps create a better democratic rule. It is the ideal way to grant power to workers, particularly during a transitional stage that precedes or makes unnecessary any one world government.

Of course, as an anarchist maybe you think that there should be no rule at all, no states, no central government ruling the world, no authority at all anywhere. I respect that sentiment and think we are actually more in agreement on that than it might first appear.

When I speak of a "state" I am thinking of local representation that exists in currently recognized boundaries. For instance, I live in Palm Beach County, Florida in the United States. My city has a government, my county, my district, my state, our nation, and then there are international bodies where policies and laws made so that there can be cooperation between nations. To me, that all makes some amount of sense because each government hold the hope of representing its people.

On a practical level with respect to a transition to a money-less society, a non-attempt to change government boundaries and authorities simply means that there becomes a voluntary case by case participation in the sharing of resources. This means that no wars need to be fought. The people represented by these governing authorities can vote for new government structures, revising constitutions and law, abolishing whatever needs to be abolished along the way, etc. What makes this happen is the will of the majority. No government needs to be overthrown.

The idea of a 'federation of states' as I have termed it, applies not just to states, as in nation states, or states like Florida, but to all government entities from the smallest municipalities on up. The reason I support this is that at a local level people see what is going on. If, for instance, the world demand for resources would deplete what they had, they should decide whether they wanted to give it up. If their contribution was not voluntary, the result would be conflict. A voluntary federation means uncoerced participation for the common good. To me this seems a little bit like anarchy even though there is a government structure.

On the other hand, there are police. The job of police changes when laws change but their job is still to uphold the law. If the people vote out the existence of money then many laws must necessarily change since so many involve monetary systems and trade. Penalties also have involved fines, which mean trade. I have proposed a different kind of penalty, a taking away of privileges, as a way of dealing with law breaking.

The idea of anarchy is that there is no authority, no head. In the government I am referring to there are some people who do the work of legal enforcement, call them police. Police are workers. There are also judges and lawyers. The difference is that none of these work for money. They serve the society by enforcing the laws that society has voted for, whether their governments have chosen representative democracy or absolute.

The fact that someone enforces law for a living does not make them head over anyone. They also must follow the laws they enforce and they have no special privilege for serving society in this way. Moreover, they are only serving the people who have recognized the need for such enforcement. As such, I don't think it is all that far away from anarchism.

I have seen a variety of attitudes and statements since I have come here. I have also read that 24 million Christians were killed under Stalin. I don't think it is unreasonable of me to approach communism with caution given this is the case. I hear people talking about peace and 'absolute opposition to the suppression of religion" but this is at conflict with what I have read elsewhere. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. There was a self proclaimed Stalinist in one of these threads. I wonder what his take is on the Christian genocide under Stalin. Do they believe it didn't happen?

[Zealot]

I have seen a variety of attitudes and statements since I have come here. I have also read that 24 million Christians were killed under Stalin. I don't think it is unreasonable of me to approach communism with caution given this is the case. I hear people talking about peace and 'absolute opposition to the suppression of religion" but this is at conflict with what I have read elsewhere. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. There was a self proclaimed Stalinist in one of these threads. I wonder what his take is on the Christian genocide under Stalin. Do they believe it didn't happen?

Oh really... I'm not even sure that anti-Marxist Leninists believe that. If you have a reliable source then let's see it but this is truly a ridiculous number. As I said to another guy, 20 million here, 20 million there and 100 million here, I'm surprised Russian still exist if this was the case.

[Zealot]

I would call myself a communist if it didn't come with so much leftist baggage, anti-religion, anti-idealism, class disdain. I realize these are not all necessarily part of real Marxist-Lenninism, but I feel some of the comments I've been reading seem to affirm that such baggage exists. Class conflict is scientific. it's a fact. Disdain is an attitude. That's different. No question, money should not be a part of anyone's life. I think I have good solutions for making a peaceful transition to a money-less society that is a cross between a technocracy and a worker's federation of states.

You didn't read anything I said obviously. I'll put it simply:

1. Religion has historically been used as a tool by the ruling class to keep themselves in power and oppress others. Whether or not this is what their religion teaches is irrelevant to historical facts. This is why we are "anti-religion", which I put in quotes because most people here wouldn't care that you're religious but you like to assert this point.

2. A peaceful transition would be lovely but like I said, the ruling class isn't just going to say "oh hey guys, we decided, that we're like exploiting everyone so like, we're just going to dismantle the government and give everything to the masses!". This is idealist which leads to the third point.

3. To see why we don't like idealism - http://www.revleft.com/vb/since-being-idealist-t162815/index.html

4. Of course there is class disdain, we want a classless society. This relates to the point about the state, the bourgeoisie isn't going to let this happen willingly. And on top of that, they are an exploitative class so don't make it sound like we disdain them for no reason.

[efficiency]

Oh really... I'm not even sure that anti-Marxist Leninists believe that. If you have a reliable source then let's see it but this is truly a ridiculous number. As I said to another guy, 20 million here, 20 million there and 100 million here, I'm surprised Russian still exist if this was the case.I spoke with an Orthodox priest last week. He says there were 24 million Christians killed under Stalin. I don't know how to prove this number. Russia had a controlled press. Didn't they? The Christian survivors are under the impression that all the Christians were killed. How many do you think were killed? If any, why were they killed? Do you believe there is any basis for believing this might happen in a similar transition in the future?

[ColonelCossack]

If you think capitalism's collapse is inevitable, what would you have it be replaced with, if not communism?


I spoke with an Orthodox priest last week. He says there were 24 million Christians killed under Stalin. I don't know how to prove this number. Russia had a controlled press. Didn't they? The Christian survivors are under the impression that all the Christians were killed. How many do you think were killed? If any, why were they killed? Do you believe there is any basis for believing this might happen in a similar transition in the future?

If you add that to the immense numbers killed in WW2, that makes around a quarter of the soviet population at the time. I don't really think the country would continue to exist if that was the case, after such a rapid shock, let alone become the world's second most powerful country only a few years later. Also, why would they all be christians?

Edit: Sorry, I've forgotten my manners. Welcome!

[SocialistTommy]

We don't believe in God here mate (not speaking on behalf of all of us btw), we prefer reading the works of Marx, Engles, Lenin etc. as opposed to that of the Holy bible, all 60 edited versions of them :)

[El Louton]

I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.
Albert Einstein

[Marxaveli]

Oh really... I'm not even sure that anti-Marxist Leninists believe that. If you have a reliable source then let's see it but this is truly a ridiculous number. As I said to another guy, 20 million here, 20 million there and 100 million here, I'm surprised Russian still exist if this was the case.

Indeed, I'm anti-Stalinist, and I don't necessarily believe that to be true. Stalin may have killed a bunch of Christians, but he also killed a bunch of the Bolsheviks. His interest was not anti-Christian, but rather based on pure state power and his own paranoia. Of course, either way, Stalin is very much someone I would not want to associate myself with, but we have to look at the facts also. His agenda was a power one, not anti-religious one.

[efficiency]

If you think capitalism's collapse is inevitable, what would you have it be replaced with, if not communism?I like the economic part of communism. I just don't think the materialism part is necessary. While I find many flaws in various types of idealism I neither find the collapse of it inevitable nor the value in its diminishment. Quite the contrary, I see the world being a much happier place where there is a combination of materialism and idealism rather than one or the other. I find in the incarnation of Christ a sign of this - the spiritual and the material fully uniting without loss to either aspect.




If you add that to the immense numbers killed in WW2, that makes around a quarter of the soviet population at the time. I don't really think the country would continue to exist if that was the case, after such a rapid shock, let alone become the world's second most powerful country only a few years later. Also, why would they all be christians?

Edit: Sorry, I've forgotten my manners. Welcome!thank you for the welcome :) It seems to be a general impression and saying among Orthodox Christians, priests included, that these are the approximate numbers. Although they are remarkably high, three times the size of the Jewish holocaust and represent the percentage of population you are speaking of, I have no access to proof of anything from where I stand. The number may be different. These people may be wrong but I doubt they would be making these claims if the number was not very very high. I'm sure some research on the subject could turn some number or other up or at least a range of estimates. I haven't done due diligence on it.

Why Christians? Well, I'm sure many Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus were also killed. It has been called "holy Mother Russia" because of the extent to which Orthodox Christianity permeated it, but according to this same priest there was also a melting pot of religions and attitudes. He acknowledged the excesses of the Romanoff dynasty and pointed out that Rasputin wasn't an Orthodox Christian, but a shaman of some sort. He says the setting for the Bolshevik revolution was one in which the Christian church was very dead in its faith, very worldly. This is when greed, pride, arrogance and selfish lust turns into the worst sort of class disparity and capitalism smells most foul. He seems to have much sympathy for what the uprising of the proletariat there under those circumstances.

Again, my greatest concern about communism is the anti-religious attitudes I find among its adherents. While the whole world has about had it with institutional abuse, it is the thought of people bombing and burning down churches and other places of worship on the one hand, or on a less violent level - confiscating the property, outlawing assembly there. I don't particularly adhere to an institutional church. If I did, I suppose it would be Orthodoxy, as I read my history books and the Bible, so I wouldn't personally suffer loss if these things were destroyed or the buildings used for other purposes, but I know there would be a conflict between those who were using them for the religious purpose and those who would confiscate or destroy them and I think that that type of a conflict is not only not necessary but quite frightening and would reflect nothing other than the metamorphosis of intolerance.

Any regime that undertook any such measures would lose prestige. I wish there was a way of joining a vanguard that could guarantee no such repeat of history would take place. Words are not sufficient. Revolution has no moral code. Proof is needed - the universal acceptance of a manifesto of tolerance.

[Marxaveli]

I like the economic part of communism. I just don't think the materialism part is necessary. While I find many flaws in various types of idealism I neither find the collapse of it inevitable nor the value in its diminishment. Quite the contrary, I see the world being a much happier place where there is a combination of materialism and idealism rather than one or the other. I find in the incarnation of Christ a sign of this - the spiritual and the material fully uniting without loss to either aspect.



thank you for the welcome :) It seems to be a general impression and saying among Orthodox Christians, priests included, that these are the approximate numbers. Although they are remarkably high, three times the size of the Jewish holocaust and represent the percentage of population you are speaking of, I have no access to proof of anything from where I stand. The number may be different. These people may be wrong but I doubt they would be making these claims if the number was not very very high. I'm sure some research on the subject could turn some number or other up or at least a range of estimates. I haven't done due diligence on it.

Why Christians? Well, I'm sure many Jews and Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus were also killed. It has been called "holy Mother Russia" because of the extent to which Orthodox Christianity permeated it, but according to this same priest there was also a melting pot of religions and attitudes. He acknowledged the excesses of the Romanoff dynasty and pointed out that Rasputin wasn't an Orthodox Christian, but a shaman of some sort. He says the setting for the Bolshevik revolution was one in which the Christian church was very dead in its faith, very worldly. This is when greed, pride, arrogance and selfish lust turns into the worst sort of class disparity and capitalism smells most foul. He seems to have much sympathy for what the uprising of the proletariat there under those circumstances.

Again, my greatest concern about communism is the anti-religious attitudes I find among its adherents. While the whole world has about had it with institutional abuse, it is the thought of people bombing and burning down churches and other places of worship on the one hand, or on a less violent level - confiscating the property, outlawing assembly there. I don't particularly adhere to an institutional church. If I did, I suppose it would be Orthodoxy, as I read my history books and the Bible, so I wouldn't personally suffer loss if these things were destroyed or the buildings used for other purposes, but I know there would be a conflict between those who were using them for the religious purpose and those who would confiscate or destroy them and I think that that type of a conflict is not only not necessary but quite frightening and would reflect nothing other than the metamorphosis of intolerance.

Any regime that undertook any such measures would lose prestige. I wish there was a way of joining a vanguard that could guarantee no such repeat of history would take place. Words are not sufficient. Revolution has no moral code. Proof is needed - the universal acceptance of a manifesto of tolerance.

Materialism and Idealism are fundamentally opposed philosophies, you cannot have both even if you wanted to. It would be akin to putting a Communist and a Fascist in the same room: you would have WWIII in a matter of seconds. Materialism (the philosophic component of Marxism) is necessary for Marxism, because it is the DRIVING FORCE and method for the understanding of the historic component (Historic Determinism) and the economic component (Communism) of Marxist theory.

The reason Communism rejects religion is due to the many reactionary aspects and contradictions seen in religion, though there is a number of religious Commies on here it seems. They could probably tell you more about it, but it is my view that Marxist theory and religion are not compatible, since religion is the primary form of Idealism. It has been used as a tool of manipulation of the proletariat time and again, and the divisions it creates in society (Jews vs. Catholics vs. Muslims etc) are paramount. Materialism concerns itself with the conditions of the real world and its relationship to the social interaction between people, and it is based on reason and rationality, not superstition and mythology as religion is. There is no religion but the religion of HUMANITY, in my opinion. Just my thoughts.

[Zealot]

I spoke with an Orthodox priest last week. He says there were 24 million Christians killed under Stalin. I don't know how to prove this number.

Priests say a lot of things, I studied at a seminary for 2 years before I realized the priests were talking bs. You can't prove this number because it isn't there.


Russia had a controlled press. Didn't they?

State owned doesn't necessarily mean controlled. I'm not sure how it worked in the SU but I hear the same criticisms for Viet Nam, except when I went there the press had some pretty damning things to say about the government.


The Christian survivors are under the impression that all the Christians were killed.

ALL? wow, now I know for a fact this is bs. 70% of Russians today profess to be Russian Orthodox christians (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2010/148977.htm). So basically 70% of Russia magically converted sometime between now and Stalin :laugh:


How many do you think were killed? If any, why were they killed? Do you believe there is any basis for believing this might happen in a similar transition in the future?

No, if they were killed it wouldn't have been "because they were christian" but for some other reason and they happened to be christians. And it wouldn't have been 24 million that is just....absurd. I hope you don't mean to tell us you've discovered something even the bourgeois scholars and Trotskyists haven't found out. It won't happen in the future because truth is we don't care about religion, we just think it's a little bit stupid, but other than that we let them on their merry way.


I like the economic part of communism. I just don't think the materialism part is necessary. While I find many flaws in various types of idealism I neither find the collapse of it inevitable nor the value in its diminishment. Quite the contrary, I see the world being a much happier place where there is a combination of materialism and idealism rather than one or the other. I find in the incarnation of Christ a sign of this - the spiritual and the material fully uniting without loss to either aspect.

You don't understand our conception of materialism and Hegelian idealism. I'll reply later because i have to go

[Yuppie Grinder]

You seem polite and reasonable, unlike many religous or conservative people who visit revleft just to troll.

[Die Rote Fahne]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Has this been linked yet?