What is better: Communism or Capitalism?

[Nicholas Popov]

http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/en.png

http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/which-of-the-ideologies-and-government-really-serves-for-people.html

http://modelgovernment.org/images/en_l.jpg

http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/

[Judicator]

I feel like the OP is trying to sell a drug rehab program or a religious movement.

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting. From what I see a kind of propulist middle road. Probably exactly what Russia needs right now.

[RGacky3]

Utopianism, by utopian I mean creating a future vision without taking current material conditions into consideration.

[ComradeMan]

Utopianism, by utopian I mean creating a future vision without taking current material conditions into consideration.

If you read Toni Negri's "Commonwealth" (2009)- he too seems to go beyond/post capitalism and communism.

[Nicholas Popov]

I feel like the OP is trying to sell a drug rehab program or a religious movement.

Any religion and unilateral ideology are a drug that narrows the pupils of the eyes and an mental outlook.

Whether only Russia needs Commonsense?

[RGacky3]

The starting point of ANY ideology should be an analysis of what we have now, what the problems are, what causes the problems and how we fix them. Not trying to create some perfect system.

I'm sorry but this website is utter utopianist bullshit, its devoid of any actual analysis and most of it is just making nonsense analogies and connections.

The Soviet Union has been critiqued by Socialists from the very begining, this is nothing new, authoritariansim has been critiqued everywhere it rears its ugly head.

[Nicholas Popov]

The starting point of ANY ideology should be an analysis of what we have now, what the problems are, what causes the problems and how we fix them. Not trying to create some perfect system.

I'm sorry but this website is utter utopianist bullshit, its devoid of any actual analysis and most of it is just making nonsense analogies and connections.

The Soviet Union has been critiqued by Socialists from the very begining, this is nothing new, authoritariansim has been critiqued everywhere it rears its ugly head.

"Only the paleface steps on one same rake twice." - The Russian saying.

[RGacky3]

... ok ... How is that a response to my post?

[Bud Struggle]

"Only the paleface steps on one same rake twice." - The Russian saying.

Russians call people "paleface?"

:D

[RGacky3]

Probably just a direct traslation that does'nt get the actual meaning.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are some interesting ideas - if I'm reading it correctly, the idea of having five political agents which counterbalance each other certainly seems to have potential. It would probably be a good idea to look at history for any similar examples and if possible, some kind of empirical test of the idea.

However, what criticism of the capitalist price system that I can see is shallow and generic, and there is nothing that even attempts to address the problems inherent in price systems, such as the massive corruption fostered by the existence of freely transferable tokens, with a value decided by fiat rather than material considerations.

It might be a better alternative to robber-baron oligarchy, but I see nothing to prevent it from sliding back into that state.

[Revolution starts with U]

Probably just a direct traslation that does'nt get the actual meaning.

No, I think it means western europeans, ie "white people."

[ComradeMan]

No, I think it means western europeans, ie "white people."

наступить дважды на одни и те же грабли means to make the same mistake twice. If you step on a rake you'll see why. I'm not sure why he used "pale face"- :confused:

[Comrade Hill]

Monopoly of one political idea leads to the inevitable formation of a caste which serves it, to the cult of ‘The Supreme priest’ and to the alienation from the rest of society. The caste pursues the interests of the caste exclusively.And this is based off of.......what?

Our comrades should welcome any ideas that don't involve scarcity, price systems, rewards for greed, or any of that sort.

If you are not willing to come up with an idea that is not similar to Capitalism, then you have nobody to blame but yourself if you are unhappy with the "cult of reason."

Communism serves strictly to get rid of Capitalism and it's ilk. The 2 ideologies do not mix together at all, any attempt to combine these 2 ideologies will result in extreme contradictions.

[Rafiq]

Sounds like


1. Crap Utopianism (Like the Venus project) and I can go on with all the Bourgeois filth inside it.

2. Third positionism.

[Ocean Seal]

... ok ... How is that a response to my post?
Shh you might scare off the troll. He's one of the most interesting ones that we've had.

[Drosophila]

The only people who would say that capitalism is better than communism are either stupid or greedy.

[Rafiq]

^ What do you mean by Communism? Do you mean the Communism of the 20th century? Than of course capitalism is better.

Do you mean communism as a movement? Of course not!

[tir1944]

Than of course capitalism is better.
Really? :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Really? :rolleyes:

Yup.

[Mitja]

neo communism is way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way better than fucking capitalism

[Rafiq]

Really? :rolleyes:

Capitalism is more efficient than degenerated 'socialism'.

Because

1. Capitalism was intentional, 20th century Communism was isolated and suffocated.

2. Capitalist countries weren't constantly under siege.

[tir1944]

Damn i wonder how come most E.Eur. countries were objectively better off back in "communst" days...i also wonder how come so many people agree on that too.
Whatever you may think of the USSR etc.,fact is,it was way better than modern Russia etc...

[tir1944]

1. Capitalism was intentional, 20th century Communism was isolated and suffocated.
You mean international?
At one point a big part of the world was actually "communist".


2. Capitalist countries weren't constantly under siege.
Neither was the USSR/WP countries,at least not since the 60s etc...
Also Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Void]

I just converted to http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/ it feels great you should try it too.

[Nox]

Capitalism is the best!!!

Ps:


ron paul 2012!!!!! Constitution!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111

[DinodudeEpic]

Neither, and I'm assuming the poster was thinking about soviet-style planned economies.

Mutualism is the better economic system in my opinion.

[Rafiq]

Damn i wonder how come most E.Eur. countries were objectively better off back in "communst" days...i also wonder how come so many people agree on that too.
Whatever you may think of the USSR etc.,fact is,it was way better than modern Russia etc...

You mean countries like Hungary, The Czech Republic, and Poland?

[tir1944]

Let's try Russia,Ukraine,Romania,Bulgaria,Albania,all ex-YU countries (except maybe Slovenia).
Also yeah,Hungary is rather poor.
Czechia and Poland have indeed managed to improve certain things but...it's still not that good and is likely to get worse in near future.

[Ocean Seal]

^ What do you mean by Communism? Do you mean the Communism of the 20th century? Than of course capitalism is better.
No.

Take an overall snapshot of capitalism in the 20th century and compare it to "Stalinism" and you'll find that 20th century socialism was far better.
If you had the take the place of a random individual in the capitalist world or a random individual in the Eastern bloc which would you take (keeping in mind the high probability that you would be relegated to an extremely poor peasantry in capitalism)? I'd take communism, in the USSR, China or wherever before being a peasant in Africa, Latin America, India or South East Asia. The extreme progress of the Marxist-Leninist movement should not be denied nor should it ever be shunned as worse than capitalism. Whatever it was, it was better than what the rest of the world had.

[Comrade Hill]

Capitalism is more efficient than degenerated 'socialism'.

Because

1. Capitalism was intentional, 20th century Communism was isolated and suffocated.

2. Capitalist countries weren't constantly under siege.

Please, glorify capitalism more won't ya?:rolleyes:

There have been several suicides and deaths as a result of capitalism.

The Soviet economy would've continued to grow tremendously, and possibly could've caught up with the first world if their physical capital did not generate such low productivity. The Soviet scientists were considered some of the best trained scientists in the world. They went from being a backwards feudal nation to a super power post-World War 2.

I'm not glorifying Stalin or the amount of famine or killing that went on. However, as a leftist, you should learn to appreciate the positive things that came out of the Soviet Union.

The rest of the world of course was more efficient, that's because they followed a consistent plan of market initiatives, unlike the Soviet Union, who embraced state owned property and discouraged production incentives, but I'd still take the early 20th century Soviet Union under Lenin than any other capitalist country.

[Rafiq]

Let's try Russia,Ukraine,Romania,Bulgaria,Albania,all ex-YU countries (except maybe Slovenia).
Also yeah,Hungary is rather poor.
Czechia and Poland have indeed managed to improve certain things but...it's still not that good and is likely to get worse in near future.

slovenia is better off now, and, most people in Bulgaria think they are better off now.

As for the Ex Yugoslav countries, excluding Slovenia, I don't know what the general opinion is regarding the old days so I cannot make a statement in regards to it.

[Rafiq]

Please, glorify capitalism more won't ya?:rolleyes:

There have been several suicides and deaths as a result of capitalism.

And there will be suicides under socialism, too.


The Soviet economy would've continued to grow tremendously, and possibly could've caught up with the first world if their physical capital did not generate such low productivity. The Soviet scientists were considered some of the best trained scientists in the world. They went from being a backwards feudal nation to a super power post-World War 2.


Russia in the early 1900's was one of the most rapidly industrializing countries in the world. That would have occurred regardless.



I'm not glorifying Stalin or the amount of famine or killing that went on. However, as a leftist, you should learn to appreciate the positive things that came out of the Soviet Union.

No, as a leftist, we should be criticizing the Soviet Union even more than we do now!


The rest of the world of course was more efficient, that's because they followed a consistent plan of market initiatives, unlike the Soviet Union, who embraced state owned property and discouraged production incentives, but I'd still take the early 20th century Soviet Union under Lenin than any other capitalist country.

You're talking out of your ass. The Soviet Union wasn't a shit hole because the state owned property. It was a shit hole because socialism cannot develop in one country and prosper.


And, are you fucking kidding me? The Soviet Union under Lenin was by far a complete shit hole. Even Lenin knew this (He was 'leader' from 1918-1924), as Russia was a war torn country by the civil war. I'd rather live in the USSR under Stalin than under Lenin (Not saying Stalin is better than Lenin, just Russia's material conditions were shit).

[Rafiq]

No.

Take an overall snapshot of capitalism in the 20th century and compare it to "Stalinism" and you'll find that 20th century socialism was far better.
If you had the take the place of a random individual in the capitalist world or a random individual in the Eastern bloc which would you take (keeping in mind the high probability that you would be relegated to an extremely poor peasantry in capitalism)? I'd take communism, in the USSR, China or wherever before being a peasant in Africa, Latin America, India or South East Asia. The extreme progress of the Marxist-Leninist movement should not be denied nor should it ever be shunned as worse than capitalism. Whatever it was, it was better than what the rest of the world had.

No, it was not. The West had far better living standards. Sure, those countries were a hell of a lot fucking better than living in some third world capitalist hell hole.

However, where are those countries now? Where is he Soviet Union? Where is the Eastern Block states? Obviously they failed, in the end.

[Ocean Seal]

No, it was not. The West had far better living standards. Sure, those countries were a hell of a lot fucking better than living in some third world capitalist hell hole.

However, where are those countries now? Where is he Soviet Union? Where is the Eastern Block states? Obviously they failed, in the end.
The third world is by population size comparison far larger than the first world. The first world is only a tiny fragment of the capitalist world.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Coming to a leftist forum to ask "what is better: Communism or Capitalism" makes a lot of sense.

[Comrade Hill]

And there will be suicides under socialism, too.



Russia in the early 1900's was one of the most rapidly industrializing countries in the world. That would have occurred regardless.




No, as a leftist, we should be criticizing the Soviet Union even more than we do now!



You're talking out of your ass. The Soviet Union wasn't a shit hole because the state owned property. It was a shit hole because socialism cannot develop in one country and prosper.


And, are you fucking kidding me? The Soviet Union under Lenin was by far a complete shit hole. Even Lenin knew this (He was 'leader' from 1918-1924), as Russia was a war torn country by the civil war. I'd rather live in the USSR under Stalin than under Lenin (Not saying Stalin is better than Lenin, just Russia's material conditions were shit).

So you prefer capitalism overall?

That seriously smacks of elitism. What kind of leftist are you? Just curious.

[Rafiq]

The third world is by population size comparison far larger than the first world. The first world is only a tiny fragment of the capitalist world.

Again, where is the Soviet Union and it's friends right now?

[Rafiq]

So you prefer capitalism overall?

That seriously smacks of elitism. What kind of leftist are you? Just curious.

I activly support the destruction of capitalism and the ruling class with it.


However that doesn't mean I have my head up my ass. I would have much rather lived in West Germany than in East Germany.

But no matter, all of those countries ran the capitalist mode of production anyway, so, they were still capitalist anyway.

[ZeroNowhere]

Modelgovernment.org sounds like some sort of NationStates-esque game.

(The OI forum tends to sound like a Kingdom of Loathing.)

[Commissar Rykov]

When did Scientology create a government model?

[Rafiq]

Remember when I said we should restrict all of the weirdo-Venus project/whatever the hell shit Utopians.


I mean we banned Kuppo but we keep these guys ?

[Ocean Seal]

Again, where is the Soviet Union and it's friends right now?
I'm not saying that the Soviet Union was ideal, or even making excuses for why it didn't survive. I'm just saying that life in the Eastern block (overall) was better than life in the capitalist world (First World+Second World+Third World (counted together not better than each individually)) overall. That's it, and that's most necessarily true.

[Skooma Addict]

I'm not saying that the Soviet Union was ideal, or even making excuses for why it didn't survive. I'm just saying that life in the Eastern block (overall) was better than life in the capitalist world (First World+Second World+Third World (counted together not better than each individually)) overall. That's it, and that's most necessarily true.

Well capitalists don't just support "capitalism." I mean no self proclaimed capitalist supports the economic system of zimbabwe or whatever. It isn't that simple. Very few people just support property rights.

[Klaatu]

"What is better: Communism or Capitalism?"

That would depend upon your personal morals.

(A) If you are a criminal, you are a Capitalist

(B) If you are an honest person, you are a Socialist or a Communist

[Ocean Seal]

Well capitalists don't just support "capitalism." I mean no self proclaimed capitalist supports the economic system of zimbabwe or whatever. It isn't that simple. Very few people just support property rights.
Yes, but the economic system in Zimbabwe is a direct result of the economic system of the United States and the Western powers. You can't limit capitalism to what you want it to be. Because if you could, you would be able to limit it to a wealthy suburb, and say that the rest of the world would be just like that suburb if only they implemented the "right" capitalism. So no, the world is part of a global capitalist system and capitalism is responsible for all of it.

[Nicholas Popov]

... ok ... How is that a response to my post?

Russians call people "paleface?"



Probably just a direct traslation that does'nt get the actual meaning.

No, I think it means western europeans, ie "white people."


наступить дважды на одни и те же грабли means to make the same mistake twice. If you step on a rake you'll see why. I'm not sure why he used "pale face"- :confused:

ComradeMan: 5+++! :thumbup1:

"Only the paleface steps on a rake twice."
This playful saying has appeared in USSR after very popular films with a agile "American Indian" Gojko Mitich. http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4bpvzgbbYJJNsmRdkwPa4fful2fJjS _tDQkTsZcvz2gOFA929kg

[Skooma Addict]

ComradeMan: 5+++! :thumbup1:

"Only the paleface steps on a rake twice."
This playful saying has appeared in Russia after very popular films with a agile "American Indian" Gojko Mitich.

Good God that is painfully not clever.

[thefinalmarch]

"What is better: Communism or Capitalism?"

That would depend upon your personal morals.

(A) If you are a criminal, you are a Capitalist

(B) If you are an honest person, you are a Socialist or a Communist
Communism has nothing to do with morality.

Whether you find capitalism or communism to be "better" is entirely dependent on the interests of your class in the present material and economic circumstances, shit.

[Nicholas Popov]

Damn i wonder how come most E.Eur. countries were objectively better off back in "communst" days...i also wonder how come so many people agree on that too.
Whatever you may think of the USSR etc.,fact is,it was way better than modern Russia etc...

I think of why it(i.e. USSR) has died.

"Brezhnev’s corruption and economic decline; the loss of ideals; as well as aggravation of lack of goods and deterioration of life of the simple people and growth of the shadow capital provoked by Gorbachev’s one-sided, ill-conceived decisions have completed disintegration of political system and have dethroned verbiage, fruitless Gorbachev himself." http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/which-of-the-ideologies-and-government-really-serves-for-people.html

I has lived in the USSR.

[RGacky3]

I think of why it(i.e. USSR) has died.

Not to difficult, it was trying to compete militarily with a much more powerful super power, namely the united states, and there was no way that they could.

[Nicholas Popov]

Not to difficult, it was trying to compete militarily with a much more powerful super power, namely the united states, and there was no way that they could.

It was the confrontation of two oligarchies. The simple people have nothing to divide.

[tir1944]

Not to difficult, it was trying to compete militarily with a much more powerful super power, namely the united states, and there was no way that they could. Why are you What?
The USSR was militarily more than competent,a fact recognized by NATO itself.They even had more ICBMs and such.

[RGacky3]

I don't know about that I'd have to see the numbers.

Remember the US was at all damaged economically by WW2 to any degree that the USSR was, also the US was industrialized way before the USSR, which got industrialized overtime during Stalin, so the USSR was trying to rebuild its economy after the war, industrialize AND compete with the US in military power and influence over the third world, while the US did'nt have to rebuild its economy, had giant markets opened up to it, was already industrialized, and had a major headstart militaritly.

[tir1944]

I don't know about that I'd have to see the numbers.
Time to visit the good old Wiki.
Check the USSR-USA nuclear comparison graph,the number of tanks and planes WP and NATO had etc...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/220px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png



Remember the US was at all damaged economically by WW2 to any degree that the USSR was, also the US was industrialized way before the USSR, which got industrialized overtime during Stalin, so the USSR was trying to rebuild its economy after the war, industrialize AND compete with the US in military power and influence over the third world, while the US did'nt have to rebuild its economy, had giant markets opened up to it, was already industrialized, and had a major headstart militaritly.
The USSR kept catching up with the US militarily (and in other ways) while maintaining high growth rates until the late 70s or so.
By the 70s the USSR had a clear advantage over NATO in Europe.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why are you What?
The USSR was militarily more than competent,a fact recognized by NATO itself.

[citation needed]

Conscript armies tend to have shit morale.


They even had more ICBMs and such.

Which is partly why they went fucking bust. Too many resources expended on missiles and not enough on creature comforts.

[mykittyhasaboner]

slovenia is better off now, and, most people in Bulgaria think they are better off now.

As for the Ex Yugoslav countries, excluding Slovenia, I don't know what the general opinion is regarding the old days so I cannot make a statement in regards to it.

Even the most apolitical individual who isn't even old enough to have lived through those times will tell you that 'socialist' Yugoslavia was way better than the current situation which everyone despises (except for the bourgeoisie).


No, it was not. The West had far better living standards. Sure, those countries were a hell of a lot fucking better than living in some third world capitalist hell hole.

The "West" had far better living standards for those who could afford it, obviously. What say you of the living standards for unemployed, uneducated, homeless, sick, or otherwise low income individuals? Those people who make up the majority of the population in the "Western" countries?

Welfare for working people was much more advanced and helpful in the socialist bloc than for people in the US for example. This is a demonstrable fact.


However, where are those countries now? Where is he Soviet Union? Where is the Eastern Block states? Obviously they failed, in the end.They were overthrown by a nascent bourgeoisie (the "new" petit-bourgoeisie: the intelligentsia, useless state officials, technocrats, corrupt mother fuckers, etc) with the help of international capital.

That doesn't mean the average person wasn't better off while they still existed.




Conscript armies tend to have shit morale.

When they are used to invade and occupy other territories, yes. For example, Vietnam.

But when conscript armies are designed for defence, it is probably the opposite. The Soviet military was primarily meant for landwar in Eurasia. Not extended military adventurism, like the US military. This is partly why they failed to win a prolonged war in Afghanistan.

[RGacky3]

The USSR kept catching up with the US militarily (and in other ways) while maintaining high growth rates until the late 70s or so.
By the 70s the USSR had a clear advantage over NATO in Europe.

Sure but you don't think think the economic pressure that it exherted along with everything else it had to deal with was a huge factor in its collapse?

A dehydrated runner can beat a hydrated runner if he juts exherts himself much much more, but in the end he's gonna pass out.

[tir1944]

Conscript armies tend to have shit morale.What exactly are you basing this nonsense on?
RKKA,for example,was a conscript army.So was the Wehrmacht.
The Vietnamese People's Army was also a conscript army.


Which is partly why they went fucking bust. Yeah? Says who?


Too many resources expended on missiles and not enough on creature comforts. Yes,i'm sure the people would have profited from uranium-235 cutlery...:laugh:
It doesn't take too much resources to build a rocket.And,of course,the USSR had plenty of metals and minerals and such.
Anyway,i'd really like to see your evidence for these claims.Thank you.



Sure but you don't think think the economic pressure that it exherted along with everything else it had to deal with was a huge factor in its collapse?
No.


A dehydrated runner can beat a hydrated runner if he juts exherts himself much much more, but in the end he's gonna pass out. Yeah,whatever,however how is this relevant to our subject of discussion.

Also +1 to what "mykitty..." wrote

[RGacky3]

Yeah,whatever,however how is this relevant to our subject of discussion.


That the USSR was economically dehydrated after the war, and weak because it was late in industrialization, so even if it won the arms race, it was gonna pass out economically, which it did (as many predicted).


No.


Ok, why not, and then what was the cause?

[Rafiq]

"What is better: Communism or Capitalism?"

That would depend upon your personal morals.

(A) If you are a criminal, you are a Capitalist

(B) If you are an honest person, you are a Socialist or a Communist

Complete horse shit.

It depends on your class position, not your "morals". And criminals are only criminals in the face of "the law" - which the bourgroidie created..

Try again

[Ocean Seal]

Time to visit the good old Wiki.
Check the USSR-USA nuclear comparison graph,the number of tanks and planes WP and NATO had etc...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/220px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png


The USSR kept catching up with the US militarily (and in other ways) while maintaining high growth rates until the late 70s or so.
By the 70s the USSR had a clear advantage over NATO in Europe.
I'm not sure if this is something which we should be cheering on. It was necessary for the USSR to defend itself, but exceeding the nuclear power of the United States seems rather silly and counter-productive. Especially considering the SU surpassed the US in the late 70's which was when it went into its sharp decline.

[tir1944]

That the USSR was economically dehydrated after the war, and weak because it was late in industrialization, so even if it won the arms race, it was gonna pass out economically, which it did (as many predicted).
Utter nonsense.What are you basing this on,for fucks sake?
The USSR practically finished rebuilding itself by 1950...
I mean,what you wrote makes absolutely no sense,so in order to have at least some standard of discussion i'd like you to provide exact sources and statistics for these claims of yours.


Ok, why not, and then what was the cause? Revisionism and treachery.IMO.
Gorby publicly stated that his intention was to destroy "Communism" in the USSR and bring the country to its knees.

[Revolution starts with U]

Complete horse shit.

It depends on your class position, not your "morals". And criminals are only criminals in the face of "the law" - which the bourgroidie created..

Try again

Engels wasn't a socialist?

[Nicholas Popov]

Coming to a leftist forum to ask "what is better: Communism or Capitalism" makes a lot of sense.

I respect thinking people.

[Rafiq]

Engels wasn't a socialist?

/facepalm.

what does this have to do with Engels? He was the farthest thing from a moralist.

[Nicholas Popov]

Gorby publicly stated that his intention was to destroy "Communism" in the USSR and bring the country to its knees.

Any imposed political regime creates a disbalance in a society and keeps on violence only (the Soviet dictator Stalin). The saved up contradictions between ruling elite and rest society leads to an political coups.
Self-disintegration were laid in a outdated governance system primordially. Brezhnev's stagnation was the first symptom. The weak-willed leader Gorby has only accelerated destruction process. :trotski:

[ComradeMan]

Interesting to see that some people who may never have been to the USSR seem to know more than the guy who was born, raised and educated in the USSR. I think Nicholas has some difficulties with English and getting the message across, and, forgive me Nicholas, but the Russian language can be very "direct" and "strong" at times... but still, give the guy a break...

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting to see that some people who may never have been to the USSR seem to know more than the guy who was born, raised and educated in the USSR.

Welcome to the imaginary world of RevLeft!

[hatzel]

Complete horse shit.

It depends on your class position, not your "morals". And criminals are only criminals in the face of "the law" - which the bourgroidie created..

Try again


Engels wasn't a socialist?


/facepalm.

what does this have to do with Engels? He was the farthest thing from a moralist.

Presumably the point was that Engels's "class position" wasn't proletarian. Ergo Engels was not a socialist. And if he was, it was because of some kind of moral concern. Unless he was merely stating an inevitability, that socialism will eventually arise, without making any claim that it should. Which would suggest that socialists are merely those who accept this truth, i.e. it has nothing to do with one's "class position" whatsoever.

[Revolution starts with U]

I was going to say the same thing Rabbi. But you said it for me, faster, and better :cool:

[Nicholas Popov]

Interesting to see that some people who may never have been to the USSR seem to know more than the guy who was born, raised and educated in the USSR. I think Nicholas has some difficulties with English and getting the message across, and, forgive me Nicholas, but the Russian language can be very "direct" and "strong" at times... but still, give the guy a break...


Welcome to the imaginary world of RevLeft!

It's all correct. The imaginary world of RevLeft is the sad past for Russia; it's time for useful conclusions. :cursing:

[RGacky3]

Revisionism and treachery.IMO.
Gorby publicly stated that his intention was to destroy "Communism" in the USSR and bring the country to its knees.

Thats not a reason, I'm saying concrete reasons, thats like saying it was "meanness" that brought down the world economy ....


Utter nonsense.What are you basing this on,for fucks sake?
The USSR practically finished rebuilding itself by 1950...


But it was still economically slower than the US, and still trying to build a bigger military.


I mean,what you wrote makes absolutely no sense,so in order to have at least some standard of discussion i'd like you to provide exact sources and statistics for these claims of yours.


In 1989, the GDP of the Soviet Union was $2500 Billion while the GDP of the United States was $4862 Billion, and in the US it was 21,082 per capita and in the USSR it was 9,211. So the USSR was simply a poorer country, dispite amazing growth, and it had that disparity and STILL was trying to keep up with the US militarily.

This seams a much more likely actual economic MATERIALIST reason, than your bullshit idealist "treachery and revisionism," seriously if the USSR could be brought down by some people being backstabbers than it was obviously a shitty system, and revisionism ... Common man, that does'nt mean a damn thing.

[Kotze]

There are some interesting ideas - if I'm reading it correctly, the idea of having five political agents which counterbalance each other certainly seems to have potential.Nicholas Popov already posted a couple of months ago about that idea. It was something like this: He is against a single-party system, and wants a system where a more centrist party has more power than the others. The centrist gets determined both from the voting pattern of the voters and the voting pattern in the parliament. IIRC there was also something about making coalitions more fluid, because a very stable coalition of several parties is in effect just one party calling itself a coalition.

For guessing the centrist from what the voters say I would like to have a look at more expressive ballots than ballots that only allow a single mark. For example, allow voters to rate any party on the scale and declare the one with the highest mean the centrist (or take the median instead or search first for the Condorcet winner). With ratings you could also record for any pair of parties how far apart their ratings usually appear on a ballot to get an indication of how similar they are.

I wouldn't trust voting analysis from inside the parliament as much. One problem is that there are decisions that are much more important than others. If a party is very willing to compromise on many small issues (like naming some street after a legendary cat rescuer), but extreme on a big issue (war), you don't want your formula saying that's the centrist, right? So the topics have to be weighted somehow. (For budget decisions we already have a starting point: a very big slice of the budget is probably a big decision.) Should there be a people's jury for weighting issues? Another problem is that in the parliament you have a much smaller group than the general population and the stakes are higher per person, so strategy is a bigger issue. If a party is sure it has no chance to get its way in some decision, it might vote there in a centrist way to score centrist points. (The attractiveness of that strategy could be reduced by adding a big probalistic element to votes inside the parliament, but such an element at that point is probably not a good idea for other reasons.) A third problem is that even if you have a good measure for centrist according to the people in the parliament that looks less meaningful to me than centrist according to the general population.

You have to also think more about getting from here to the future, though the option that at first appears the most realistic from the status quo is of course the status quo. Calling something idealist and leave it at that is not very helpful, so I will be more specific.
Advertising of the ruling parties’ is prohibited, their campaign can be supported with the work done only, opposition may publish an unaccepted version through the mass media. The advertising campaign of new parties can not be financed from private sources and state funds are distributed equally among the contenders.I can make up a world in my head where the media is clearly divided into reporting and adverts, but how would you make the distincion in the real world where it's a legal fiction? If only a sample from the population votes it might be possible for candidates to directly interact with the voters, so clout with the mass media plays less of a role.

Aaah I have a hard time putting into words what I'm actually thinking. There's another poster on the forum who talks a bit about putting voting software into every cellphone and the like, which is something that I approve, and I know more about voting mechanisms than anybody else on this forum, it's just that I don't want people to get a wrong impression of what it can do and what it can't do. Imagine there's a person in South Africa and he has cameras on him and his actions are viewed by people in an Inuit village 24/7 (more transparent than any government) and they have discussions and they regularly vote (not only with a frequency that is astonishing, the mechanism allows an expressiveness that is lightyears ahead of anything used in any government context), and they have strong opinions about everything, like which person he should date. These opinions — why should he give a shit?

Super general advice for everybody: When thinking about how something could be improved, regularly ask yourself who would benefit the most from that and make sure that the group you ask to make and keep that change overlaps with that as much as possible.

[Nicholas Popov]

Nicholas Popov already posted a couple of months ago about that idea....

Forgive, I will translate it later.

Kotze,
Приятно общаться с думающими людьми. Спасибо.
Я не господь Бог выдавать незыблемые заветы. Это только идея, которая требует детальной разработки.

Ясно, что необходимо уходить от устаревшей и опасной парадигмы бесконтрольного единовластия. Перенаселённый парламент позволяет затеряться паразитирующим бездельникам и непрофессионалам. Это неэффективная структура. Нужна более компактная и оперативная модель власти с возможно более разносторонними взглядами, что повышает качество и скорость принятия решений.

Концепция "5-конечной звезды" может быть использована не только для мозгового центра Нации, но и для коллективного управления крупными предприятиями с большим количеством работающих собственников.
Эта идея является входным билетом в мир коллективного разума и созидания. Что это, если не коммунизм?

Современные "Боинги" начинались с аэроплана братьев Райт. Развитие новой модели управления - дело времени.

Спасибо за критические замечания. Наше совместное творчество является примером коллективного мышления. :thumbup1:

[tir1944]

Izvini tov. po tomu chto ja ne znaju po Russki pravilno govorit',esho uchimsja...ni Kirillicu na "klaviaturei" ne imaju...:blushing:


Приятно общаться с думающими людьми.Zdes net mnogo takih,tov. Popov.:)


Ясно, что необходимо уходить от устаревшей и опасной парадигмы бесконтрольного единовластия. "Besskontrolnoje edinovlastje" eto kontra-revolucionnaja parola Menjshevikov i inih reakcionarniih urodov.
VSJA VLAST SOVETAM-ETO parola Revolucii i trudovog naroda.


Это неэффективная структура.No da,da,"neeffektivnaja struktura" stroila socializm v odnoj strani v roke 2 Pyatiletki!
Eta "struktura" poluchila derzhavu sohi i izbei,a ostavila za soboi sovremennuju super-silu s jadrennim oruzhiem....


Нужна более компактная и оперативная модель власти с возможно более разносторонними взглядами, что повышает качество и скорость принятия решений.A gde klassovaja borba,gde materialisticheskaja analiza?

[Revolution starts with U]

Я не знаю, что пошел на хуй парни говорят.

[tir1944]

Что? :laugh::confused:

[Revolution starts with U]

Blame google translate :lol:

[Rafiq]

Presumably the point was that Engels's "class position" wasn't proletarian. Ergo Engels was not a socialist. And if he was, it was because of some kind of moral concern. Unless he was merely stating an inevitability, that socialism will eventually arise, without making any claim that it should. Which would suggest that socialists are merely those who accept this truth, i.e. it has nothing to do with one's "class position" whatsoever.

it does depend on your class position, but there are exceptions.


Engels accepted that the proletarian class was the only class capable of extending the human constraint further.

It is mainly your class position.

[Rafiq]

It's all correct. The imaginary world of RevLeft is the sad past for Russia; it's time for useful conclusions. :cursing:

We all know the Soviet Union was a shit hole (well the sensible ones among us).

What I don't like about you is your blatant Utopianism and third positionism.

Your solution to everything is both unrealistic and filled with opportunism.

[Drosophila]

Really? :rolleyes:

I think most communists/leftists would have rather lived in the United States than in Russia during WWII.

[tir1944]

I think most communists/leftists would have rather lived in the United States than in Russia during WWII.
So? What's your point?
Anyway,Communists had the internationalist obligation to come and rally to help the Soviet Union,with a pen or a sword.

[Bud Struggle]

We all know the Soviet Union was a shit hole (well the sensible ones among us).

What I don't like about you is your blatant Utopianism and third positionism.

Your solution to everything is both unrealistic and filled with opportunism.

And you don't think Communism is utopian and filled with false optimism?

[RGacky3]

And you don't think Communism is utopian and filled with false optimism?

No more than beliving in democracy is utopian and filled with optimism.

BTW, you believe when you die you'll go to heaven ...

Communism is all about understanding the inherent problems in Capitalism, understanding the inherent injustices in it, and fighting against those things and comming up with solutions.

Its NOT about a competing system, or finding some perfect system, thats utopianism, and thas what this guy is doing, its system building, and imo its missguided.


So? What's your point?
Anyway,Communists had the internationalist obligation to come and rally to help the Soviet Union,with a pen or a sword.

No they don't, because the Soviet Union was anti-communist, case in point? suppression of the Hungarian revolt and fight for real communism (worker control) and hte same in the czech republic, and in ukraine, and in spain.

[Rafiq]

And you don't think Communism is utopian and filled with false optimism?

Sometimes, people make it that way. But Communism in the historical sense, from the times of Marx and onward, no, Communism was merely a movement that represented the interests of the proletariat, not a blueprint for a future society.

[Nicholas Popov]

Приятно общаться с думающими людьми. Zdes net mnogo takih,tov. Popov.:)

I noticed it; Revolution starts with U especially.


No da,da,"neeffektivnaja struktura" stroila socializm v odnoj strani v roke 2 Pyatiletki!
Eta "struktura" poluchila derzhavu sohi i izbei,a ostavila za soboi sovremennuju super-silu s jadrennim oruzhiem....

Winston Churchill: "Stalin came to Russia with a wooden plough and left it in possession of atomic weapons."

The price of this industrial and military power of Stalin's regime is here:

The man-made famine in Ukraine: for the purpose of purchase of the import equipment for the heavy industry Stalin has sold the whole of Ukrainian bread.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJPvKyz-YM2DYx3G0EPYJ-n66G80o6LhL0DMvmQLrUsAhTAh6J http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLaQByM9S-66rFfpF4ehnwGt0y3M2f8NDJ9bj_XGFKp-FwbSJZ http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJX5jOnS4AHt1S9Vj-GjEd_aUyI-R-DNMsudgQ-m-3Mcopp0tS9A

GULAG, the White Sea – Baltic Canal: Professors, engineers and cultural workers were forced to dig the earth and cut wood.

http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/thumbnails/thumb_gulag11.jpg http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgmfc1FvwTCXgWvPp4d_Vb2wtmk0crp b2pjODPIxhnrjllbAYZGw http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSvLRiGFvTByF3asZGuexa8m4z8OWPZg cL8myYDcfCw6d2Ft36X

About 4 millions persons have been shot or were lost from inhuman working conditions. Bandits and swindlers have appropriated national wealth now.

You can strain oneself and save up money for purchase of the car by means of economy on your health, but the catafalque will become your car in this case.


A gde klassovaja borba,gde materialisticheskaja analiza?

Who is to profit from class struggle?

http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/thumbnails/thumb_democracy_or_monarchy_.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

Sometimes, people make it that way. But Communism in the historical sense, from the times of Marx and onward, no, Communism was merely a movement that represented the interests of the proletariat, not a blueprint for a future society.

You are one of the few people whose Communism make sense around here. :)

[Revolution starts with U]

I noticed it; Revolution starts with U especially.


:confused: Idk if I'm a thinking person, or the one not giving you much rest. But all I did was point out that "Paleface" means white people (it does), and that I don't understand Russian....

Needless to say, since I've been dragged into this, I think this is all one big Golden Mean fallacy; the center will not save us.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

Except workers exploiting,mass killings,heavy taxes,dramatic poverty,hunger in places such as Africa,what has capitalism offered to the society?I think that every normal person would say that capitalism has been a mass destruction for the human being as a whole.Communism opposes all the things capitalism wants to have,so communism is definetely pwning the shitty system that fat-ass richies enjoy.Capitalism is against the workers,against the most powerful social layer.However,workers are smart enough not to be dominated by the idiotic capitalists who are mean and definetely must not be marked as ideologists.Workers of the world,Unite!:hammersickle:

[Nicholas Popov]

:confused: Idk if I'm a thinking person, or the one not giving you much rest. But all I did was point out that "Paleface" means white people (it does), and that I don't understand Russian....

Needless to say, since I've been dragged into this, I think this is all one big Golden Mean fallacy; the center will not save us.

Who has dragged you into this? It was only the joke from a children's film about American Indians. O God! http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4bpvzgbbYJJNsmRdkwPa4fful2fJjS _tDQkTsZcvz2gOFA929kg

[Revolution starts with U]

Who has dragged you into this? It was only the joke from a children's film about American Indians. O God!

You did! :lol:

Again I don't understand Russian, so I have no idea why you name dropped me specifically. All I said prior to that in this thread was 2 things; Paleface means white people, and "I don't know wtf you guys are talking about." lol

[Drosophila]

So? What's your point?


That the Soviet Union post 1924 was a train wreck. I know you're probably going to give me some crap about how Stalin "industrialized, modernized, and militarized Russia, therefore he's great." To which I'd respond: getting things done is easy when you have prisoners to do everything for you.

[tir1944]

That the Soviet Union post 1924 was a train wreck.Most people disagree.
It was a backwards rural country in 1924,in 1934 it was already an industrialized one.


To which I'd respond: getting things done is easy when you have prisoners to do everything for you. Dumbest post in this thread.
People worked 16 hours a day voluntarily in order to set up factories.The GULAG and other prisoners were not a very significant factor in the industralization,the will and resolve of the Soviet people and their leadership was.

[Nicholas Popov]

You did! :lol:

Again I don't understand Russian, so I have no idea why you name dropped me specifically. All I said prior to that in this thread was 2 things; Paleface means white people, and "I don't know wtf you guys are talking about." lol

It was the innocent joke from a children's film. Let on the substance of a theme. :trotski:

[Nicholas Popov]

People worked 16 hours a day voluntarily in order to set up factories.

Yes, it was. The person has 3 motivations to make something: money (better quality of life), ideological views (internal or under the influence of propaganda) and external violence. Money hasn't been respected at Stalin...
During the war, people voluntarily threw themselves under the tanks, but were also pickets: if you do not go on the attack, your the same picket shoot you ...

[Revolution starts with U]

It was the innocent joke from a children's film. Let on the substance of a theme. :trotski:

I understand that. What I am saying is I don't know why I was name dropped specifically, as all I said was "paleface means white people" and "I don't understand Russian."

So why exactly did you respond with "I noticed it; from Revolution Starts with U specifically?" Noticed what? That I said "paleface means white people?" Or that some people don't speak russian? What did you notice from me?

[Nicholas Popov]

I understand that. What I am saying is I don't know why I was name dropped specifically, as all I said was "paleface means white people" and "I don't understand Russian."

So why exactly did you respond with "I noticed it; from Revolution Starts with U specifically?" Noticed what? That I said "paleface means white people?" Or that some people don't speak russian? What did you notice from me?

Я не знаю, что пошел на ... парни говорят. :thumbdown:

[Bud Struggle]

Rev, I don't think Nick is all that proficient at English. (He is a lot betterr at it than I am at Russian.) I wouldn't question him too closely about how he uses words and phrases.

Just saying.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't care. I just don't see why I was name dropped specifically, seeing as how I was not critiquing his theory, or anything like that. He can say paleface, I don't care. I was just pointing out that is what paleface means. And apparently he doesn't know why he named dropped me specifically seeing as how his answer was "I don't know what went on." I assume that's his answer because google translate sucks.

EDIT: Ok so I went back and retranslated the dialogue between Tir and Popov. Here's what I have come up with

Popov: I like talking with the thinking people

Tir: Not that many (on the net? Or around here? one of those 2)

Popov: I've noticed, Rev Starts with U, specifically.

So apparently pointing out to someone that they are using racist language is being a "not thinking person." Why would you, get so upset at someone pointing that out to you?

[Drosophila]

Most people disagree.
It was a backwards rural country in 1924,in 1934 it was already an industrialized one.
Dumbest post in this thread.
People worked 16 hours a day voluntarily in order to set up factories.The GULAG and other prisoners were not a very significant factor in the industralization,the will and resolve of the Soviet people and their leadership was.

Bullshit. The Gulags had a combined population of well over a million by the time WWII started. And that was Gulag, not Sharashka, so these people were literally worked to death (or not if they starved). What's your justification for that? Is working millions of people to death just a "necessary sacrifice?"

Even outside the camps labor was easy.

[ComradeMan]

Попов очень старается на английском языке, дать ему паузу и попытаться понять, что он говорит. Я думаю, что это весело, что экс-Советского Союза гражданина, противоречит некоторым здесь. Я знаю точно, что он говорит, и я говорил с экс-советских граждан и граждан восточного блока, которые говорят то же самое.;)

[tir1944]

The Gulags had a combined population of well over a million by the time WWII started.
No one denied this.
However what does that have to do with our subject.What's your point?

[Revolution starts with U]

Да товарищ человека, но действуя, как будто мы поддерживаем Советского Союза (большинство из нас) есть огромный отвлекающий маневр.

[Bud Struggle]

Да товарищ человека, но действуя, как будто мы поддерживаем Советского Союза (большинство из нас) есть огромный отвлекающий маневр.

Hey, speak English. the Americans won the Cold War not the Soviets!
:D

[Decolonize The Left]

http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/en.png

http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/which-of-the-ideologies-and-government-really-serves-for-people.html

http://modelgovernment.org/images/en_l.jpg

http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/


What is better: Communism or Capitalism?


Better question: Which bear is best??!?


FALSE


Black bear.

- August

[GatesofLenin]

[citation needed]
Conscript armies tend to have shit morale.


Tell that to the average WW2 German soldier.

[Klaatu]

Communism has nothing to do with morality.

Whether you find capitalism or communism to be "better" is entirely dependent on the interests of your class in the present material and economic circumstances, shit.

Communism has everything to do with morality.

A Communist, by his principles of sharing and equality for all, has achieved a higher moral standard than Greedy Capitalists could hope for...
In fact, GREED is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. (Capitalism is ALL ABOUT greed, grasshopper...really, that's what it is about.)

Jesus Christ himself would fall into the category of Communist. Christians may not have been called "Communist" way back 2,000 years ago, and I doubt that Atheists would agree with my opinion, but the principles of good morality are still there. Maybe you should study this Jesus guy.

[Drosophila]

No one denied this.
However what does that have to do with our subject.What's your point?

They were all put to work for the USSR, making the Five Year Plans a breeze.

[tir1944]

They were all put to work for the USSR, making the Five Year Plans a breeze.
Post some evidence for this nonsense thesis or shut the fuck up.

[Comrade Hill]

I honestly do not know what to say to the revisionists on here.

Rafig, would you prefer live in Africa than the USSR? Where the people there are broke because they have been colonized and taken advantage of for their wealth?

The United States may have been better off with capitalism since they have the most money, the rest of the world certainly isn't though.

Do you think people in the USSR had trouble with segregation and racism like the US has?

[Revolution starts with U]

I would rather be
wherever I am
because that was where I belonged in the first place

Life. Is. Good.

[ComradeMan]

Post some evidence for this nonsense thesis or shut the fuck up.

Okay, let's look at the White Sea - Baltic Canal.


The Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union) presented the canal as an example of the success of the First Five-Year Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Five-Year_Plan). Its construction was completed four months ahead of schedule. The entire canal was constructed in twenty months, between 1931 and 1933, almost entirely by manual labor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea_%E2%80%93_Baltic_Canal


The canal was the first major project constructed in the Soviet Union using forced labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor). BBLAG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gulag_camps#GULAG), the Directorate of the BBK Camps, serviced the construction, supplying a workforce of an estimated 100,000 convicts,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea_%E2%80%93_Baltic_Canal#cite_note-5) at the cost of huge casualties.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea_%E2%80%93_Baltic_Canal#cite_note-6) Prison labor camp projects were not usually publicized, but the work on the Belomor canal was an exception, as the convicts were thought to not only construct the canal but reforge themselves in the process (Soviet concept of perekovka, or reforging).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sea_%E2%80%93_Baltic_Canal


1931–32 archives indicate the Gulag had approximately 200,000 prisoners in the camps; in 1935 — approximately 800,000 in camps and 300,000 in colonies (annual averages).[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GULAG#cite_note-Kozlov-27)
...
Between 1934 and 1941, the number of prisoners with higher education increased more than eight times, and the number of prisoners with high education increased five times. It resulted in their increased share in the overall composition of the camp prisoners. Among the camp prisoners, the number and share of the intelligentsia was growing at the quickest pace. Distrust, hostility, and even hatred for the intelligentsia is a common characteristic of the communist leaders. After having laid hold of unlimited power, they, as practice has shown, were simply unable to resist the temptation to mock the intelligentsia. The Stalin version of mocking the intelligentsia was the referral of its part to the Gulag on the basis of far-fetched or fabricated charges. For unrepressed part of the intelligentsia, the mockery was prepared in the form of “ideological dressing down”, leading and guiding instructions “from above” on how to think, do, worship the “leaders”, etc.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GULAG#cite_note-.D0.97.D0.B5.D0.BC.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B2-21) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GULAG#Creation_of_.22Gulag.22_and_its_expansion_un der_Stalin

[tir1944]

Okay, let's look at the White Sea - Baltic Canal.
Yes,quite an achievement.
But what about the industrialization of the country and the role prison labor played in it? How about some exact sources this time?

[Nicholas Popov]

Nicholas Popov already posted a couple of months ago about that idea...

It is pleasant to communicate with thinking people. Thanks!
I not the Lord God to give out unshakeable Commandments. The dogmatism conducts to creative death. It only idea which demands detailed working out.

Clear that is necessary to leave from the outdated and dangerous paradigm of uncontrolled autocracy. The overpopulated parliament allows parasitic idlers and non-professionals to lost in the crowd. It is inefficient structure. It's necessary more compact and operative model of the power with a possible more multipolar views, that raises quality of decisions.

The Idea of "a 5-pointed star" can be used not only for a think tank of the Nation, but also for collective management of the large enterprises with a considerable quantity of working proprietors.
This idea is the entrance ticket in the world of collective reason and creation to spite a capitalist and a dictatorial Ego. What it, if not communism? But it is Communism without dictators and barracks. Whether this know-how hasn't sufficed for Lenin and Marx to the logical completeness?

Modern "Boeings" began with an airplane of Wright brothers. Development of new model of management is but a matter of time.

Thanks for critical remarks. Our joint creativity already is an example collective thinking! :) :thumbup1:

[Rafiq]

Communism has everything to do with morality.

No it does not. Communism was the movement that represented the emancipation of the proletariat. The proletarians that joined didn't do it out of ethics, they did it for selfish reasons.


A Communist, by his principles of sharing and equality for all, has achieved a higher moral standard than Greedy Capitalists could hope for...
In fact, GREED is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. [I](Capitalism is ALL ABOUT greed, grasshopper...really, that's what it is about.)



Communism was not built upon "Equality". The bourgeoisie, when confronted with communism, thought that it was built around "Equality" because they themselves realized the mass quantities of wealth they had and believed that one day people would get pissed about it.

Communism is not a great book of ethics one must follow, or a lifestyle. Perhaps you are an ethical socialist but don't go about throwing us Marxists in your bandwagon of sheer Moralism.

[Rafiq]

I honestly do not know what to say to the revisionists on here.

Rafig, would you prefer live in Africa than the USSR? Where the people there are broke because they have been colonized and taken advantage of for their wealth?

The United States may have been better off with capitalism since they have the most money, the rest of the world certainly isn't though.

Do you think people in the USSR had trouble with segregation and racism like the US has?

Question:

Where is your beloved USSR? Can't seem to spot it on the map.

[Revolution starts with U]

No it does not. Communism was the movement that represented the emancipation of the proletariat. The proletarians that joined didn't do it out of ethics, they did it for selfish reasons.



Communism was not built upon "Equality". The bourgeoisie, when confronted with communism, thought that it was built around "Equality" because they themselves realized the mass quantities of wealth they had and believed that one day people would get pissed about it.

Communism is not a great book of ethics one must follow, or a lifestyle. Perhaps you are an ethical socialist but don't go about throwing us Marxists in your bandwagon of sheer Moralism.

I understand what you're saying Rafiq. But what's going to happen when you get rich? Are you just going to give up on all of this?

[Rafiq]

I understand what you're saying Rafiq. But what's going to happen when you get rich? Are you just going to give up on all of this?

There would be nothing wrong with getting rich if the means of attaining such weren't so destructive.

[Revolution starts with U]

There would be nothing wrong with getting rich if the means of attaining such weren't so destructive.

Ok. But what if I offer you ownership of a business, free of charge. Will you abondon socialism, or make an ethical choice and either turn it down, or convert it to a co-op?

[Bud Struggle]

Ok. But what if I offer you ownership of a business, free of charge. Will you abondon socialism, or make an ethical choice and either turn it down, or convert it to a co-op?

Come to the Dark Side, Rafiq. Come with us. :)

[Rafiq]

Ok. But what if I offer you ownership of a business, free of charge. Will you abondon socialism, or make an ethical choice and either turn it down, or convert it to a co-op?

I would take your buisness.

And shit went down I'd use the funding's to finance revolutionary activity. Not out of ethics but because if I horded all of the wealth than if revolution were to break out the proles would confiscate everything I had, anyway.

[ComradeMan]

I understand what you're saying Rafiq. But what's going to happen when you get rich? Are you just going to give up on all of this?

What does it mean truly to be "rich"?

Communism isn't about everyone being equally "poor".

[Comrade Hill]

Question:

Where is your beloved USSR? Can't seem to spot it on the map.

The size 5 font is unnecessary.

The USSR vanished because of Khrushchev and Gorbachev, relaxing state controls, putting a higher emphasis on "glasnost," and failing to combat local corruption and bougeois counter-revolutions.

Your turn to answer my question, sir revisionist. You still failed to answer my previous question as well.

That question was, what kind of leftist are you, if you don't support trotskyist world revolution, nor do you support vanguard parties?

You claim that you are a leftist, yet you defend all the capitalist countries. Why should anyone believe that you are a leftist?

[DinodudeEpic]

Come to the Dark Side, Rafiq. Come with us. :)

When socialists go to the Dark Side, they become fascists.

Mussolini and Sorel are great examples.

Literally, fascists are like the Sith to socialists.

History, simplified into Star Wars references for the layman.

[Robert]

That question was, what kind of leftist are you

A kid. Leave him alone.

[Bud Struggle]

When socialists go to the Dark Side, they become fascists.

Mussolini and Sorel are great examples.

Literally, fascists are like the Sith to socialists.

History, simplified into Star Wars references for the layman.

True that, about the Fascist thing. As am American taxpayer and a good Republican I dislike Fascists as much as anyone--but the way the Communists go so far overboard in hateing the Fascists, from ANTIFAS tatoos to engaved nose rings to actually getting in to fights with them. When after all--they are nothing, or rather just a bunch of unruley kids trying to show off.
,

[Revolution starts with U]

I would not bet that if this were a fascist site w the rep system, and I linked quotes from Darth Bane, but left them anonymous, it would get hella thanks. You'd get even more on Ayn Rand sites :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

“Equality is a lie…A myth to appease the masses. Simply look around and you will see the lie for what it is! There are those with power, those with the strength and will to lead. And there are those meant to follow—those incapable of anything but servitude and a meager, worthless existence”
-Darth Bane

"There are no other Sith. There never will be, except for us. One Master and one apprentice; one to embody the power, the other to crave it."
"Power is its own purpose. To share it is to dilute it. You delude yourself, pretender -- Your order will yet turn on itself and you."
"Equality is a perversion of the natural order!…It binds the strong to the weak. They become anchors that drag the exceptional down to mediocrity. Individuals destined and deserving of greatness have it denied them. They suffer for the sake of keeping them even with their inferiors.
"Equality is a chain, like obedience. Like fear or uncertainty or self doubt.

The weak will always be victims, that is the way of the universe. The strong take what they want, and the weak suffer at there hands. That is there fate; it is inevitable. Only the strong survive, because only the strong deserve to

[Klaatu]

Klaatu
"Communism has everything to do with morality."

Rafiq
"No it does not. Communism was the movement that represented the emancipation of the proletariat. The proletarians that joined didn't do it out of ethics, they did it for selfish reasons."

Klaatu
"A Communist, by his principles of sharing and equality for all, has achieved a higher moral standard than Greedy Capitalists could hope for...
In fact, GREED is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. (Capitalism is ALL ABOUT greed, grasshopper...really, that's what it is about.)"

Rafiq
"Communism was not built upon "Equality". The bourgeoisie, when confronted with communism, thought that it was built around "Equality" because they themselves realized the mass quantities of wealth they had and believed that one day people would get pissed about it.

Communism is not a great book of ethics one must follow, or a lifestyle. Perhaps you are an ethical socialist but don't go about throwing us Marxists in your bandwagon of sheer Moralism."
____________________________

What does morality mean? To me it means obeying laws and looking out for one's neighbor. Do not confuse "morality" with forcing others to go along with one's views. That is not what I meant.

You use the term "Communism was..." as in the past tense. I am not talking about a history lesson here. I am talking about
a benevolent Socialist Utopian society of the future. Whatever happened in the past in Soviet Russia or "Communist" China have
no bearing on an idealistic society based on equality. That's because neither country is, nor was, really Socialist nor Communist anyway.

And if you are going to have, as your ideal society, a system of "Communism" that is dictatorial, then you can count me out,
because I believe in freedom and equality.

[Nicholas Popov]

Okay, let's look at the White Sea - Baltic Canal.

Alas, it is true.
Unfortunately, in Stalin's Russia the Boors decided destiny of professors. What many Europeans and Americans only guess, became tragedy for Russian intelligency.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSF5WsT8AoIca_LQnzFFuhkAZCVF5Dpa PRbI5IPvjNT8555WcCjIw http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHLblFrnt2TMpd44uoFbqMVirhAUODR nU6eInxwf0ioQlF-uGPgg http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSshDeUPqOpgjT5QY_Jf2hUh9r4sHsAG iKDUR9n4K5TFx3pYBOCgg http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSa14h4HTmtjKkPla8TK8vUeGxRlj0NU SA3L-AdB9ZKO5HwovWw


The weak will always be victims, that is the way of the universe. The strong take what they want, and the weak suffer at there hands. That is there fate; it is inevitable. Only the strong survive, because only the strong deserve to

This philosophy is called fascism. Its short history is here: http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/thumbnails/thumb_Hitler_euphoria.jpg http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/thumbnails/thumb__german_prisoners.jpg.jpg http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/thumbnails/thumb_ruins_of_Reichtag.jpg

http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/which-of-the-ideologies-and-government-really-serves-for-people.html

Equality of the vagabond and the professor is nonsense; the society will suffer from such equality but the tramp should have protectability and equal possibility to become the professor.
And a safety of the professor depends on social and legal security of the vagabond. The injustice reinforces extremism in society.

[Revolution starts with U]

You probably just missed the connection I was trying to make. In my previous posts I said that fascists would love Darth Bane. The next post, the one you quoted, were some of the sayings of Darth Bane. It is the point I was trying to get across that Darth Bane is a fascist tho, so thumbs up on that :thumbup:

[Nicholas Popov]

You probably just missed the connection I was trying to make. In my previous posts I said that fascists would love Darth Bane. The next post, the one you quoted, were some of the sayings of Darth Bane. It is the point I was trying to get across that Darth Bane is a fascist tho, so thumbs up on that :thumbup:

Clearly. Nevertheless it is not necessary to propagandize philosophy of the narrow-minded. The history has struck to them on the head once. But it is a very costly edification.

[ComradeMan]

FFS guys- Popov, who grew up in the USSR, is coming here to discuss new ideas and all people can do is shit on him based on half-assed nostalgia about the Soviet Union? This is symptomatic of why the left always seems to shoot itself in the foot. Across the language barrier it seems to me that his ideas are centering on post-marxist ideas- something people here might like to consider, or are we all just stuck in the 1970s? I might not understand or even agree with all of his ideas and I have questioned some of them but I am not going to give the guy a hard time for having new ideas and futhermore coming here in a friendly way and trying to discuss them....

Попов-ты должен мне крепкой водки за что! :lol:;)

[Nicholas Popov]

FFS guys- Popov, who grew up in the USSR, is coming here to discuss new ideas and all people can do is shit on him based on half-assed nostalgia about the Soviet Union? This is symptomatic of why the left always seems to shoot itself in the foot. Across the language barrier it seems to me that his ideas are centering on post-marxist ideas- something people here might like to consider, or are we all just stuck in the 1970s? I might not understand or even agree with all of his ideas and I have questioned some of them but I am not going to give the guy a hard time for having new ideas and futhermore coming here in a friendly way and trying to discuss them....

Попов-ты должен мне крепкой водки за что! :lol:;)

Agreed! it's a deal! Which vodka to bring: Stolichnaya or Moscowskaya? :thumbup: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif

[ComradeMan]

Agreed! it's a deal! Which vodka to bring: Stolichnaya or Moscowskaya? :thumbup: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif

Stolichnaya.....budem zdorovy!!!!!

I found this Russian song- do you know it? What are they singing- I can only catch a few words... :(

qpWYBx6Yjcg

[Nicholas Popov]

"USSR is communist for successes but is not communist (i.e. state capitalist) for criticism of communism."


Stolichnaya.....budem zdorovy!!!!!

I found this Russian song- do you know it? What are they singing- I can only catch a few words... :(

"... не морозь меня и мою лошадь ..."

It doesn't matter! There are still Esperanto, lambada and Michael Jackson's moonwalk! :)

If seriously: The forced collectivization and the state capitalism (i.e. centralization) were born from a Stalin's paranoia to supervise the all. First of all we should speak about an error of revolutionaries (i.e. preservation of outdated system of the individual power) that has handed over communistic idea and destinies of millions to criminal Stalin.
This error cost the lives of themselves revolutionaries (including Trotsky :trotski: ) and isn't corrected so far.

[ComradeMan]

@Comrade Popov...

Do you think holding power and socialism can ever exist? They say all power corrupts- is there something in this? What's your opinion?

Как вы думаете, удержания власти и социализма, никогда не может существовать? Они говорят, что все власть развращает, есть что-то в этом? Каково ваше мнение?

[Nicholas Popov]

@Comrade Popov...

Do you think holding power and socialism can ever exist? They say all power corrupts- is there something in this? What's your opinion?

Как вы думаете, удержания власти и социализма, никогда не может существовать? Они говорят, что все власть развращает, есть что-то в этом? Каково ваше мнение?

More likely not the power (the management) corrupts but monopolism and sensation of the superiority over other people. Any chief is obedient and loyal to its higher boss because of dependence on it. Should be an internal competition of several independent participants within power and a fair struggle for keeping sympathies of his segment of voters, i.e. should be an real dependence on the population.

The socialism is when each leader protects interests of its social group. In the absence of it "socialism" turns to a monarchy of one leader and one political party.
Privileges of ruling elite and poverty of the simple people against the background the well-to-do West has caused mistrust of the population to communists and has destroyed all "socialist" camp. The Iron Curtain hasn't helped to hide a deceit.

The self-regulation is a fundamental law of nature. In the absence of socialist camp as deterrent capitalism aggravates contradictions in a society that activates the leftist movement all over the world now. Protests and revolts will be again. But it doesn't solve a problem. It is necessary to change a management paradigm, and the self-regulation should be within government with a several independent participants.

"Только бледнолицый наступает на грабли дважды." - It is a joke! :rolleyes:

http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/the-self-balancing-model-of-government.html

http://modelgovernment.org/images/en.jpg

[RGacky3]

System creation is a waste of time, trying to think up of different models is utopianism, we have to look a the world as it is and deal with the problems we have now directly.

[Nicholas Popov]

System creation is a waste of time, trying to think up of different models is utopianism, we have to look a the world as it is and deal with the problems we have now directly.

You can to look a the world as it is till the gate of the Buchenwald only; the world will be narrowed for you further. The next generation doesn't remember experience of the Past.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpbhQcr7x1eX2tyU9CFmrImdYGWPSWq aiB84T4SKjSaLbivyWyxQ

[RGacky3]

You can look a the world as it is to the gate of Auschwitz only; the world will be narrowed for you next. The future generation doesn't remember experience of the past. http://www.revleft.com/vb/better-communism-capitalismi-t163612/revleft/smilies2/trotski.gif

What the hell does that have to do with my post? You look at the way things are, historically analysis, and then you deal with the problems at hand.

If you want to set up your own theoretical models go right ahead, but I'm telling you its a waste of time.

[ComradeMan]

System creation is a waste of time, trying to think up of different models is utopianism.

So that's like all political theorising and stuff out of the window..... :crying:

[RGacky3]

No its not. There is a difference between looking at problems, analysing the world and finding how to fix it, and trying to set up alternet realities.

[ComradeMan]

No its not. There is a difference between looking at problems, analysing the world and finding how to fix it, and trying to set up alternet realities.

How is Popov trying to set up alternative realities?

[RGacky3]

How is Popov trying to set up alternative realities?

His whole website is a "model" for some future society. I.e. the exact same stuff that the Utopians were doing that contributed nothing to actual class struggle.

[ComradeMan]

His whole website is a "model" for some future society. I.e. the exact same stuff that the Utopians were doing that contributed nothing to actual class struggle.

But don't anarchists, socialists, marxists and every other group of -ists do that too in some sense?

[RGacky3]

But don't anarchists, socialists, marxists and every other group of -ists do that too in some sense?

Not really, for example I could say "look at XYZ problems, they are caused by ABC by means of such and such mechanisms, we resolve problesm XYZ by undoing ABC and making something that does not have ABC in it, but can achieve good results without XYZ problems, and here is what is stopping these good results and here is how we are going to overcome these things."

What Utopians do is "XYZ is bad, so lets make a new system with no problems, rather than look at the underlying problems, the different things causing these problems, and whats stopping solutions from comming about."

Yes everyone tries to think of solutions, but theres a difference between trying to find the perfect model and then just saying "here we go I've found the solution", and looking at the underlying causes of the problems and fighting against those things.

[Revolution starts with U]

Also, isn't kind-of saying essentially "a centrist party will save us!" which makes it just wrong in the first place?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nicholas Popov already posted a couple of months ago about that idea. It was something like this: He is against a single-party system, and wants a system where a more centrist party has more power than the others. The centrist gets determined both from the voting pattern of the voters and the voting pattern in the parliament. IIRC there was also something about making coalitions more fluid, because a very stable coalition of several parties is in effect just one party calling itself a coalition.

Doesn't this commit the Fallacy of the Golden Mean? I was thinking that there being five political agents was significant because it's the lowest odd number that isn't one or three.


For guessing the centrist from what the voters say I would like to have a look at more expressive ballots than ballots that only allow a single mark. For example, allow voters to rate any party on the scale and declare the one with the highest mean the centrist (or take the median instead or search first for the Condorcet winner). With ratings you could also record for any pair of parties how far apart their ratings usually appear on a ballot to get an indication of how similar they are.

I agree that being able to state one's preferences more eloquently on a ballot would generally be a good idea, but I don't agree with the privileging of the "mindless middle" because of the above mentioned fallacy in doing so.


I wouldn't trust voting analysis from inside the parliament as much. One problem is that there are decisions that are much more important than others. If a party is very willing to compromise on many small issues (like naming some street after a legendary cat rescuer), but extreme on a big issue (war), you don't want your formula saying that's the centrist, right? So the topics have to be weighted somehow. (For budget decisions we already have a starting point: a very big slice of the budget is probably a big decision.) Should there be a people's jury for weighting issues? Another problem is that in the parliament you have a much smaller group than the general population and the stakes are higher per person, so strategy is a bigger issue. If a party is sure it has no chance to get its way in some decision, it might vote there in a centrist way to score centrist points. (The attractiveness of that strategy could be reduced by adding a big probalistic element to votes inside the parliament, but such an element at that point is probably not a good idea for other reasons.) A third problem is that even if you have a good measure for centrist according to the people in the parliament that looks less meaningful to me than centrist according to the general population.

This sounds far too open to abuse and gerrymandering for my liking. Political systems in my estimation should adhere to the KISS principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle), for the purposes of maintaining transparency if nothing else.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2287676]Not really, for example I could say "look at XYZ problems, they are caused by ABC by means of such and such mechanisms, we resolve problesm XYZ by undoing ABC and making something that does not have ABC in it, but can achieve good results without XYZ problems, and here is what is stopping these good results and here is how we are going to overcome these things."

My experience has indeed been a claim that XYZ is caused by ABC.
But when challenged over whether indeed XYZ is the source of the problem, the solution proposed always seems to include a variation of ABC.


What Utopians do is "XYZ is bad, so lets make a new system with no problems, rather than look at the underlying problems, the different things causing these problems, and whats stopping solutions from comming about."

Yes. There will always be problems- even in capitalism. However the self described non-utopian socialists seem to think the solution is to get rid of the capitalist and call a vote and that will somehow, automatically, make things better.

[RGacky3]

Yes. There will always be problems- even in capitalism. However the self described non-utopian socialists seem to think the solution is to get rid of the capitalist and call a vote and that will somehow, automatically, make things better.

The solution is the change the incentives ...

[Geiseric]

Capitalism comes down eventually to overproduction, which actually causes all the wars we have had since Capitalism's dawn... the nature of a planned economy takes away the overproduction issue and makes all the technological advancements we have today be put to use for something other than profit, and it's likely that everybody will have free access to education and the resources that allow one to have an education, so i'll go with that.

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=Syd Barrett;2287883]Capitalism comes down eventually to overproduction, which actually causes all the wars we have had since Capitalism's dawn...

So what caused all the wars prior to the development of capitalisms' "overproduction"?

t
he nature of a planned economy takes away the overproduction issue

And generally creates an underproduction problem- which is not an improvement.


and makes all the technological advancements we have today be put to use for something other than profit,

Needs to be proved.


and it's likely that everybody will have free access to education and the resources that allow one to have an education, so i'll go with that.

Ahhh- the true motivation here.

[Drosophila]

Capitalism comes down eventually to overproduction, which actually causes all the wars we have had since Capitalism's dawn... the nature of a planned economy takes away the overproduction issue and makes all the technological advancements we have today be put to use for something other than profit, and it's likely that everybody will have free access to education and the resources that allow one to have an education, so i'll go with that.

History and economics show that trying to have a planned economy in a large country doesn't work.



Post some evidence for this nonsense thesis or shut the fuck up.


From Janusz Bardach, Gulag camp survivor -

"I think, I think that gulags served two purposes in Soviet society. One purpose is to keep the entire nation in permanent fear. You see a dictatorship can survive only by extreme power. Okay? And when everybody in the society is frightened, frightened to the point that nobody will revolt and nobody will oppose and nobody will say "no" to the governing class. The second, in my opinion, it was free labor. Incredible, millions of people, free labor. They would never accomplish this huge so-called "heroic" things in industry that they accomplished if they would not have free labor. They built all these industrial complexes. They built these channels between White Sea and Caspian Sea and Black Sea. And all these huge things that happened in this Soviet industry in the first Five Year Plan and the second Five Year Plan and the third Five Year Plan, they were based on this fully free labor. Slave labor. It was slavery. It was slavery of the twentieth century. It's the same what happened in the Nazi Germany."

And...

The Economics of Forced Labor: The Soviet Gulag (http://2020ok.com/books/76/the-economics-of-forced-labor-the-soviet-gulag-10676.htm)

I'd like to see some evidence from YOU backing up "People worked 16 hours a day voluntarily in order to set up factories...the will and resolve of the Soviet people and their leadership..."

[Rafiq]

The size 5 font is unnecessary.

The USSR vanished because of Khrushchev and Gorbachev, relaxing state controls, putting a higher emphasis on "glasnost," and failing to combat local corruption and bougeois counter-revolutions.


I laugh in the face of your over simplistic neglection of Soviet History and the complex and dynamic factors at hand that led to the destruction and failure of the Soviet Economy.

The decisions of one man in power led to the destruction of a whole economy, and they made those decisions because they felt like it. How Materialist of you :rolleyes:

The truth was that the policies that Khrushchev and Bhreznev, Gorbachev and the likes made were a direct, desperate response to the shit conditions manifested by the almighty Soviet economy. Khrushchev realized the Stalinist Model wouldn't work any more, Bhreznov realized the post war time growth isn't working out so well any more, and Gorbachev realized the whole USSR was falling to pieces and reform was necessary.

Material conditions dominated their descisions, not morals or lack of morals. Even the Maoists recognized this, which is why they reject the Idealist Hoxhaist Revisionism theory.

[Rafiq]

That question was, what kind of leftist are you, if you don't support trotskyist world revolution, nor do you support vanguard parties?

I'm not a Trot, but I do support Vangaurd parties and I do advocate world revolution.

In the Mind of an Anti Revisionite Stalinist, you're either one of them or a Trotskyite-Anarchist.



You claim that you are a leftist, yet you defend all the capitalist countries. Why should anyone believe that you are a leftist?

I am more of a leftist than you are, my friend. Because I for one don't have my head up my ass and am correcting false statements made by people like you about countries. Better me tell you than, say, a Libertarian who will humiliate you.

When did I "defend capitalist countries"? Please point it out, buddy.

[Bud Struggle]

It was the Beatles that destroyed Communism:

http://www.thirteen.org/beatles/video/video-watch-how-the-beatles-rocked-the-kremlin/36/

[Rafiq]

What does morality mean? To me it means obeying laws and looking out for one's neighbor. Do not confuse "morality" with forcing others to go along with one's views. That is not what I meant.

Well, then. You have a false definition of Morality. Morality is the belief that someone ought to do something because it is good or bad and different forms of morality define what is good and what is bad.


You use the term "Communism was..." as in the past tense. I am not talking about a history lesson here.

Well than, Communism of the future has never existed, has it.

Communism, both as a movement and as a system in place of Countries is historical. The communist movement today is deeply wounded and at best irrelivent to the advanced, industraizlied nations.


I am talking about
a benevolent Socialist Utopian society of the future.

And in doing so you are wasting everyones time.


Whatever happened in the past in Soviet Russia or "Communist" China have
no bearing on an idealistic society based on equality. [I]That's because neither country is, nor was, really Socialist nor Communist anyway.\

Are you trolling? Jesus you amplify all the things I hate, Idealism, Utopianism, etc.

Firstly, the very fact that your society is Idealistic means that it will not, and can not work, and even if they did, it wouldn't be as efficient as actual existing capitalism.

Because capitalism, unlike "Idealistic Utopias" actually exist. I am for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and their interests being upheld. Not for some Utopia that will never exist, or operate efficiently.


And if you are going to have, as your ideal society, a system of "Communism" that is dictatorial, then you can count me out,
because I believe in freedom and equality.


You are already as out of touch with Communism and Marxism as any Tea Partyer, so this decision would be at best irrelevant and would change nothing.

I don't care if you believe in freedom and equality, if you are going to work against the power of the workers then we will have to deal with that. Either join us, or stay out of our way in our conquest for class dictatorship.

[Robert]

Either join us, or stay out of our way in our conquest for class dictatorship.

At first I thought he meant "quest" instead of "conquest." But since he references "class dictatorship" in the very next breath, I think he really meant conquest.

He's going to have class dictatorship in a classless society, understand?

One of you grownup commies needs to have a quiet, private talk with this kid before he blows a gasket. I'm serious.

[Ele'ill]

At first I thought he meant "quest" instead of "conquest." But since he references "class dictatorship" in the very next breath, I think he really meant conquest.

He's going to have class dictatorship in a classless society, understand?

One of you grownup commies needs to have a quiet, private talk with this kid before he blows a gasket. I'm serious.

I'd think that you having been around for quite some time would be able to at least take a stab in the general direction of where that user is going. They're talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then again...

[Robert]

I'd think that you having been around for quite some time would be able to at least take a stab in the general direction of where that user is going.

Take a stab, eh? Okay.

He's a vanguardist who speaks (elsewhere) of the Red Terror and Felix Dzerzhinsky (Director of Bolshevik secret police) with open admiration. How's that for "where he's going"?

That's on a political level. On a personal level ("Jesus!!! I HATE [this and that]"), he's headed for the nuthouse.

[Judicator]

Death is a preferable alternative to communism.

[Klaatu]

Klaatu
What does morality mean? To me it means obeying laws and looking out for one's neighbor.
Do not confuse "morality" with forcing others to go along with one's views. That is not what I meant.

Rafig
Well, then. You have a false definition of Morality. Morality is the belief that someone ought to do something
because it is good or bad and different forms of morality define what is good and what is bad.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
Morality is all about the INDIVIDUAL'S CONSCIENCE. For example, I cannot tell YOU what to do, nor can you tell ME what to do.
If you want to dictate to ME, you can forget it ( how would you like it if I dictated to YOU?)
__________________________________________________ _____________________________

Klaatu
You use the term "Communism was..." as in the past tense. I am not talking about a history lesson here.

Rafig
Well than, Communism of the future has never existed, has it. Communism, both as a movement and as
a system in place of Countries is historical. The communist movement today is deeply wounded and at best
irrelivent to the advanced, industraizlied nations.

HUH? "Communism of the future has never existed" Well of course not... nothing "of the future" has ever yet existed"
Communism/Socialism is "wounded" because of grossly-fucked up, psychopathic DICTATORS (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot,
Saddam Hussein, etc that claimed to be C/S but were actually all about THEIR OWN POWER, not that of the masses...
did you know this fact?)
__________________________________________________ ______________________________

Klaatu
I am talking about a benevolent Socialist Utopian society of the future.

Rafig
And in doing so you are wasting everyones time.

Too bad I am wasting YOUR precious time, comrade. I am certain that many others here agree with me

__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Klaatu
Whatever happened in the past in Soviet Russia or "Communist" China have no bearing on an idealistic
society based on equality. That's because neither country is, nor was, really Socialist nor Communist anyway.

Rafig
Are you trolling? Jesus you amplify all the things I hate, Idealism, Utopianism, etc.

Firstly, the very fact that your society is Idealistic means that it will not, and can not work, and even if they did,
it wouldn't be as efficient as actual existing capitalism.

Because capitalism, unlike "Idealistic Utopias" actually exist. I am for the dictatorship of the proletariat, and their
interests being upheld. Not for some Utopia that will never exist, or operate efficiently.

You are already as out of touch with Communism and Marxism as any Tea Partyer, so this decision would be
at best irrelevant and would change nothing.

I don't care if you believe in freedom and equality, if you are going to work against the power of the workers
then we will have to deal with that. Either join us, or stay out of our way in our conquest for class dictatorship.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

I do not understand. Explain to us here, how I am "working against the power of the workers" ???

You care more about "efficiency" than worker injustice and worker inequality? well...YOU SOUND LIKE A CAPITALIST!

So what DO you want? What is YOUR ideal society? A system of dictatorship... with YOU in charge???

Let me tell you something:

I despise dictatorship, "worker-dictatorship" or otherwise. No one has any POWER over anyone else. One man, one vote.

Your statement is especially disingenuous: "you amplify all the things I hate, Idealism, Utopianism"

Sorry but I WILL NOT JOIN YOU IN A DICTATORSHIP, "class-wise" or otherwise! It makes no sense at all.

YOU are the antithesis of Socialism/Communism, comrade. If you hate Worker Idealism, then that's too bad.

You need to modify your views, because, to me, you are sounding like a FASCIST

And FASCISM has absolutely no place in a Free Socialist nor a Free Communist Society.

[Klaatu]

Death is a preferable alternative to communism.

I think you are equating Communism to Dictatorship.

These guys that are advocating dictatorship are all off-their-rockers.

Communism/Socialism is all about equal rights and workers' fairness/ownership of the national wealth. (this is freedom!)

Of course, perhaps I am misunderstanding some of the opinions here, and/or they are misunderstanding the opinions of mine. :confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Either join us, or stay out of our way in our conquest for class dictatorship.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W. Bush, in address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001

The mentality expressed in the underlying sentiment seems disturbingly similar despite different phrasings and ideology.

I've never understood why anyone thinks a "proletarian dictatorship" sounds like a good idea at all. Surely if the workers are in control, then there is no dictatorship because

A) Workers are the majority of people, thus if they are in control of society, whatever system of government is in place it cannot by definition be a dictatorship

B) Surely the point is to abolish the class system, not to simply invert it's current power balance?

[Revolutionair]

A) Workers are the majority of people, thus if they are in control of society, whatever system of government is in place it cannot by definition be a dictatorship

What is your definition of a dictatorship? As I understand it, the Marxist definition is synonymous with rulership. So when group A is the majority and group A has absolute power in society, there is a dictatorship of group A. I think this is more of a semantics problem than a theoretical one.


I've never understood why anyone thinks a "proletarian dictatorship" sounds like a good idea at all. Surely if the workers are in control, then there is no dictatorship because

B) Surely the point is to abolish the class system, not to simply invert it's current power balance?

Since it takes time to take private property out of the hands of the few, there will be a short period of time during/after the revolution in which there is a necessity for violence by the working class (EG militant workers who fight the police/other forces hired by the bourgeoisie in order to continue the expropriation of the bourgeoisie).


Please note that this is theoretical and also a small bit devil's advocate. I wrote the second part with a picture of Spanish anarchists in my head, I'm sure most of us have seen the documentaries.

[Revolutionair]

Death is a preferable alternative to communism.

Why?

[Bud Struggle]

Death is a preferable alternative to communism.

You really have to look at the possibilities. Really, the people that are latteistas are still going to be latteista after the Revolution. The people that run things now--will be running things then.

For the people with the skill that make society work, the Revolution won't bring much change at all.

[Tim Finnegan]

(Not arguing for the use of the term "proletarian dictatorship" here, as such- I'm sceptical as to its usefulness myself- just giving my two cents on its proper meaning.)


A) Workers are the majority of people, thus if they are in control of society, whatever system of government is in place it cannot by definition be a dictatorship
Only if you assume that majority rule and dictatorship are necessarilly exclusive, which I wouldn't say is the case in the sense of "dictatorship" meant by Marx. In this sense, he describes a class dictatorship, as Rafiq says, which doesn't mean the imposition of the political will of a particular individual or faction upon the whole of society, but of the imposition of the political will of a particular class organised as a class-for-itself upon the other classes which constitute society. (I would also assume that this period would involved bringing the members of those classes into the working class.) It doesn't mean secret police and mass executions, but, hey, red flags!, as some rather badly mislead comrades seem to believe, but rather the political supremacy of the working class through the democratic means of councils, soviets, etc., whether the bourgoisie like it or not.


B) Surely the point is to abolish the class system, not to simply invert it's current power balance?
For Marx, the inversion of the political power-balance is necessarilly the means by which the dissolution of class is achieved. Class can not be dissolved in an instance, but must be dissolved as part of an historical process, and that process is the process of class struggle; this is the basis of his criticism of Utopian Socialisms. The class struggle exists between capital and labour, and will culiminate, if not in the "common ruin of the contending classes", in the replacement of capital with labour as the social-politically hegemonic class. This means that labour and capital will still exist, and so capitalism would still exist, but the essentially self-contradictory nature of this arrangement would lead to the supersession of capitalist relations by communist ones, which would of course mean the dissolution of classes. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is simply this period of labour-as-hegemon, before the supersession of capitalist relations renders the categories of labour and capital non-existent.

[Kotze]

Doesn't this commit the Fallacy of the Golden Mean?Assuming a compromise is always wrong is also a fallacy, of course (law of the excluded middle). The fallacy you talk about is about assuming that when proposals can be ordered from one extreme to another, that the one in the middle of that order must be correct. Asking for the center of such an ordering is not the the same as asking for where the median opinion on that order lies. For median opinion you take the proposal ordering that answers the first question, then multiply each proposal by the number of its fans and then look for the center of what results from that. If there is one proposal that receives more than half the top rankings/ratings, it is the Condorcet winner and also the median ratings winner (these two approaches don't always give you the same winner in all other situations though), wherever the proposal was on the spectrum of what was proposed.

As for being open to abuse: Given that, random ballot aside, all voting methods have scenarios where dishonest voting pays when the number of competing candidates/proposals is >2, of course any idea about gluing such methods together in some framework must be vulnerable, the only question is how vulnerable. I mentioned the possibility for parties to use voting in the parliament to increase their centrist score when they are sure the outcome of a particular act of voting in the parliament won't go their way, but who is saying some vulnerability like this doesn't already exist? Picture a multi-party system where the higher-ups of the parties in the ruling coalition order the voting behaviour, if there's a surplus above the threshold for getting a decision through, the higher-ups can distribute that for some to pose as principled mavericks without changing the outcome.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is your definition of a dictatorship? As I understand it, the Marxist definition is synonymous with rulership. So when group A is the majority and group A has absolute power in society, there is a dictatorship of group A. I think this is more of a semantics problem than a theoretical one.

The problem is that the working class is such a large collection of individuals, that even if they share common interests, they are likely to have such widely divergent ideas of how to achieve and maintain those interests. "Diktats" from such a "dictatorship" would by necessity be schizophrenic.


Since it takes time to take private property out of the hands of the few, there will be a short period of time during/after the revolution in which there is a necessity for violence by the working class (EG militant workers who fight the police/other forces hired by the bourgeoisie in order to continue the expropriation of the bourgeoisie).

I don't think "dictatorship" is an accurate descriptor of such circumstances. I think "revolution" is a closer fit, especially since it doesn't also provide an excuse for a self-appointed vanguard to dominate everything.


Only if you assume that majority rule and dictatorship are necessarilly exclusive, which I wouldn't say is the case in the sense of "dictatorship" meant by Marx. In this sense, he describes a class dictatorship, as Rafiq says, which doesn't mean the imposition of the political will of a particular individual or faction upon the whole of society, but of the imposition of the political will of a particular class organised as a class-for-itself upon the other classes which constitute society. (I would also assume that this period would involved bringing the members of those classes into the working class.) It doesn't mean secret police and mass executions, but, hey, red flags!, as some rather badly mislead comrades seem to believe, but rather the political supremacy of the working class through the democratic means of councils, soviets, etc., whether the bourgoisie like it or not.

Again, wouldn't "revolution" be a better label for this situation? "Dictatorship" suggests a unity of opinion and method that I think is arrogant to presume - after all, I can't help but notice that everyone who uses the term tends to imagine that the hypothetical "dictatorship of the proletariat" has the same opinions as the speaker does. What a handy coincidence! :rolleyes:


For Marx, the inversion of the political power-balance is necessarilly the means by which the dissolution of class is achieved. Class can not be dissolved in an instance, but must be dissolved as part of an historical process, and that process is the process of class struggle; this is the basis of his criticism of Utopian Socialisms. The class struggle exists between capital and labour, and will culiminate, if not in the "common ruin of the contending classes", in the replacement of capital with labour as the social-politically hegemonic class. This means that labour and capital will still exist, and so capitalism would still exist, but the essentially self-contradictory nature of this arrangement would lead to the supersession of capitalist relations by communist ones, which would of course mean the dissolution of classes. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is simply this period of labour-as-hegemon, before the supersession of capitalist relations renders the categories of labour and capital non-existent.

Well that's the theory, but in practice a "dictatorship of the proletariat" seems all too often to be a "dictatorship in the name of the proletariat" which then subsequently morphs into a "dictatorship over the proletariat".

I agree that transitioning from capitalism to communism will not be something that can be done instantly, but if there are to be no dictators, then to call it a dictatorship is misleading at best and outright pernicious at worst.

[Tim Finnegan]

Again, wouldn't "revolution" be a better label for this situation? "Dictatorship" suggests a unity of opinion and method that I think is arrogant to presume - after all, I can't help but notice that everyone who uses the term tends to imagine that the hypothetical "dictatorship of the proletariat" has the same opinions as the speaker does. What a handy coincidence! :rolleyes:
That's certainly a valid argument, yeah, and it's one of the reasons that I'm septical of the usefulness of the term. My point was just that the term as used by Marx has a definition distinct from the conventional usage- or from the usage by some of his nominal adherents.


Well that's the theory, but in practice a "dictatorship of the proletariat" seems all too often to be a "dictatorship in the name of the proletariat" which then subsequently morphs into a "dictatorship over the proletariat".
Well, that invites the question of what historical episodes we actually consider as representing a "dictatorship of the proletariat", and why they devolved into the less-than-democratic regimes that they did. Some insurgent governernment simply referring to itself as such- Cuba, China, whatever- doesn't really signify much here or there.


I agree that transitioning from capitalism to communism will not be something that can be done instantly, but if there are to be no dictators, then to call it a dictatorship is misleading at best and outright pernicious at worst.
And, again, this is why I find the term to be of limited usefulness. I find "hegemony" to be less misleading, and more accurate, so that's the term I tend to prefer.

[Revolution starts with U]

What is your definition of a dictatorship? As I understand it, the Marxist definition is synonymous with rulership. So when group A is the majority and group A has absolute power in society, there is a dictatorship of group A. I think this is more of a semantics problem than a theoretical one.



Since it takes time to take private property out of the hands of the few, there will be a short period of time during/after the revolution in which there is a necessity for violence by the working class (EG militant workers who fight the police/other forces hired by the bourgeoisie in order to continue the expropriation of the bourgeoisie).


Please note that this is theoretical and also a small bit devil's advocate. I wrote the second part with a picture of Spanish anarchists in my head, I'm sure most of us have seen the documentaries.

1) Dictatorship is just simply the wrong word to use. Anybody who doesn't know what you're talking about will automatically assume there will be a dictator.

2) The people who most often talk about establishing the DoP are some of the most brutal power hungry people I have ever heard open their pie hole. They will work ruthlessly to grab the reigns of the dictatorship and "protect the working class from itself."
Sorry, no. I have no interest in such terms and ideas. There will be working class hegemony. If the worker's state has a "worker's dictatorship" it will be a perverse workers state, and another step backwards for socialism.
Count. Me. Out.

[Nicholas Popov]

Friends, it is bad when all has gang up on one person.
And yet:


I laugh in the face of your over simplistic neglection of Soviet History and the complex and dynamic factors at hand that led to the destruction and failure of the Soviet Economy.

The decisions of one man in power led to the destruction of a whole economy, and they made those decisions because they felt like it. How Materialist of you :rolleyes:

The truth was that the policies that Khrushchev and Bhreznev, Gorbachev and the likes made were a direct, desperate response to the shit conditions manifested by the almighty Soviet economy. Khrushchev realized the Stalinist Model wouldn't work any more, Bhreznov realized the post war time growth isn't working out so well any more, and Gorbachev realized the whole USSR was falling to pieces and reform was necessary.

That which is foisted on a society by violence, collapses in the absence of it. The weak-willed leaders have only accelerated this process.
The Great feats of labor, Pasha Angelina, Alexey Stakhanov ... The marauders have feasting on ruins of national property now. :(
The proletariat was left with nothing.



...There will be working class hegemony...

Someone's hegemony leads to confrontation. "And the battle is eternal [between you and me?]! We can only dream of peace?" - Alexander Blok

[Rafiq]

At first I thought he meant "quest" instead of "conquest." But since he references "class dictatorship" in the very next breath, I think he really meant conquest.

He's going to have class dictatorship in a classless society, understand?

One of you grownup commies needs to have a quiet, private talk with this kid before he blows a gasket. I'm serious.

Yes, it was quest for class dictatorship.

And a Proletarian dictatorship is absolutely vital for the survival of a proletarian revolution.

Classless society is not going to be something that will just appear over night. It takes a lot of time for the remnants of the old order to dissapear.

[Rafiq]

Take a stab, eh? Okay.

He's a vanguardist who speaks (elsewhere) of the Red Terror and Felix Dzerzhinsky (Director of Bolshevik secret police) with open admiration. How's that for "where he's going"?

That's on a political level. On a personal level ("Jesus!!! I HATE [this and that]"), he's headed for the nuthouse.

How's a say you shut your mouth and fuck off, yeah?

I doubt you know anything about Felix Dzerzhinsky, you probably don't know that he was, throughotu his whole life, against captial punishment and even made it one of his top priorities to house all of the homeless children that were left with no one after the civil war. Stop talking out of your ass. I mean how can you criticize Felix Dzerzhinsky when you don't know jack shit about him except for the fact that some Libertarian probably made his wikipedia page? Idiot.

maybe if you read the horror stories of the Jews and other ethnic minorities in the Russian empire who were systematically raped, tortured, and just plain murdered in horrific manners than you would realize Red Terror was not only necessary, it was a natural response. The White Army scum couldn't be negotiated with. They had to be destroyed.

[Rafiq]

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W. Bush, in address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001

The mentality expressed in the underlying sentiment seems disturbingly similar despite different phrasings and ideology.

I've never understood why anyone thinks a "proletarian dictatorship" sounds like a good idea at all. Surely if the workers are in control, then there is no dictatorship because

A) Workers are the majority of people, thus if they are in control of society, whatever system of government is in place it cannot by definition be a dictatorship

B) Surely the point is to abolish the class system, not to simply invert it's current power balance?

Note how I said Join us or Stay out of our way, not Join us or die.

I don't think you know what I (Or any other Marxist for that matter) means by proletarian dictatorship.

The former ruling class isn't going to give up so easily. The other social classes under capitalism are not going to dissapera with the snap of your fingers. Sure, the Proletariat may be the majority of the population, but the hell if that means that there will be no counterrevolution.

[Rafiq]

Well that's the theory, but in practice a "dictatorship of the proletariat" seems all too often to be a "dictatorship in the name of the proletariat" which then subsequently morphs into a "dictatorship over the proletariat".


You can't even use that as an argument.

The class antagonism that was formed between the Party and the Proletariat was a direct result of failure of the revolutions across Europe.

How many times must I point this out? Marx and Engels did. A dictatorship in the name of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the proletariat are two, totally different things.

Russia wasn't even Industrialized, at that, and you still had a proletarian minority. The October Revolution wasn't the problem, the problem was the inability of hte proletariat of the industrialized countries (Specifically Germany in 1919) to get into a position of class dictatorship.

I mean, do you even know why Lenin declared the Soviet Union in 1924? Out of sheer desperation.

[Rafiq]

I don't see the problem of using Dictatorship to describe the proletariat in a position of class power.

A classless society is not going to be something that will just arise out of the midst while the rainbows appear in the horizon and everyone holds hands, no.

A revolution is not a dinner party.

I absolutely find disgust in the historical simplistic take the Anarchists give on the DOTP (With some exceptions, as I find some anarchists endorse the DOTP) by talking about the failed Soviet experience.

But then, what do they bring in after that (even more pathetic?) China, The Eastern Block, Cuba etc! Fools. Little did they know that those countries arose not only as Puppet states to Soviet Imperialism, none of which were already Industrialized, massivly powerful countries beforehand. China was a famine, war torn shit hole, Cuba was a small, choked Island nation, the Eastern European countries were basically war torn Semi Feudal, starving nations, I mean, I can go on.

They completely reject the material conditions in place in those countries, and why the failed. Instead, they ride along Bakunin's old accusation that "If they (the Marxists) had it their way, the DOTP would just become the New Bourgeoisie" or whatever.

No, they are filling in imaginary gaps. Unlike the Religious, who fill in empty Gaps, the Bakuninists fill in Gaps that already contain evidence and explanations as to why the Soviet experience failed, they just ignore it.

Again, if there ever will be a proletarian revolution, mark my words, it will not be a walk in the park. A revolutionary Dictatorship is necessary and the Jacobin method, none the less.

[Revolution starts with U]

Friends, it is bad when all has gang up on one person.
And yet:



That which is foisted on a society by violence, collapses in the absence of it. The weak-willed leaders have only accelerated this process.
The Great feats of labor, Pasha Angelina, Alexey Stakhanov ... The marauders have feasting on ruins of national property now. :(
The proletariat was left with nothing.




Someone's hegemony leads to confrontation. "And the battle is eternal [between you and me?]! We can only dream of peace?" - Alexander Blok



If tyrants feel confronted by the hegemony of liberty, that's their problem.
If working class rule is the norm, it is normative whether enforced legally or not; it is hegemony of the working class.


You can't even use that as an argument.

The class antagonism that was formed between the Party and the Proletariat was a direct result of failure of the revolutions across Europe.

How many times must I point this out? Marx and Engels did. A dictatorship in the name of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the proletariat are two, totally different things.

Russia wasn't even Industrialized, at that, and you still had a proletarian minority. The October Revolution wasn't the problem, the problem was the inability of hte proletariat of the industrialized countries (Specifically Germany in 1919) to get into a position of class dictatorship.

I mean, do you even know why Lenin declared the Soviet Union in 1924? Out of sheer desperation.

Why, in your mind, have these policies consistently failed every time they have been attempted?

[Nicholas Popov]

Look back: the dictatorship of proletariat inevitably turns to the cult and dictatorship of the 'puppeteer'. :thumbdown:
Ask yourself: why should leaders do not love intelligency so much and why they speculate on a hegemony of the proletariat? Possibly you can find the answer ...
http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/which-of-the-ideologies-and-government-really-serves-for-people.html

http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/thumbnails/thumb_great-stalin1.jpg http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQhEw9nYgw3yud_ulIA05yznzIs9eDlt R6B4vOY-37t4lQqH8sw http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTy4ZbltLqoeSnOQL9NRUyKZ6TPdkUQK RI9MUvQJP_7P32ER-w97w http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWC7JOSfKkiYekToftUkERjQQ5M3QM_ FJcN7TmbCXdrHEjjLAPNA

[Bud Struggle]

Why, in your mind, have these policies consistently failed every time they have been attempted?

You nailed the argument right there.

I'd vote " failed every time." Some would argue, "never been tried." And then there are those that say, "failed every time and lets bring it back again!"

[Rafiq]

Why, in your mind, have these policies consistently failed every time they have been attempted?

You know, I post it so many times I was beggining to think people are getting sick and tired of it. But you know what, this makes me aware that It's just not sinking in. I hope you're not trolling me, by the way.

I've only posted it a thousand times, you incompident buffoon.


Why the Soviet experience failed.




Russia wasn't even Industrialized, at that, and you still had a proletarian minority. The October Revolution wasn't the problem, the problem was the inability of hte proletariat of the industrialized countries (Specifically Germany in 1919) to get into a position of class dictatorship.

(The Revolution must take place in the industrialized countries for the survival of the DOTP to exist. It cannot be contained) - Something Marx Stressed a lot but ignored by romanticists like yourself.


Why it failed in the other multiple attempts:



I absolutely find disgust in the historical simplistic take the Anarchists give on the DOTP (With some exceptions, as I find some anarchists endorse the DOTP) by talking about the failed Soviet experience.

But then, what do they bring in after that (even more pathetic?) China, The Eastern Block, Cuba etc! Fools. Little did they know that those countries arose not only as Puppet states to Soviet Imperialism, none of which were already Industrialized, massivly powerful countries beforehand. China was a famine, war torn shit hole, Cuba was a small, choked Island nation, the Eastern European countries were basically war torn Semi Feudal, starving nations, I mean, I can go on.

None of which were Industrialized, ergo Marx's theory stands strong.

[Rafiq]

Look back: the dictatorship of proletariat inevitably turns to dictatorship of the 'puppeteer'. :thumbdown:

You are now trying to piss me off, aren't you.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was attempted how many times? The Dictatorship Of the proletariat must spread to the industrialized countries to exist, as said by Marx. Did the Dictatorship spread to the industrialized countries, asshole?

Come on, let's hear it, you dismissive prick.

Of course it didn't. Not only do you not know what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, you dismiss it on a basis of backing up your shit, Utopian third positionist unrealistic rag of opportunistic shit of a solution to the world's problems. Stop. talking. out. Of. Your. Ass.

[Rafiq]

You nailed the argument right there.

I'd vote " failed every time." Some would argue, "never been tried." And then there are those that say, "failed every time and lets bring it back again!"

No, you ignorant bafoon, there are those who say that it has never been tried. There are those who say it has been tried (ONCE - Not one successful proletarian revolution existed afterwords) and this is our proof as to the failure of Socialism and the DOTP. Anyone who shares the views of both of those are complete idiots, and should not be taken seriously to the slightest degree. There are those who acknowledge it failed completely and was an utter disaster. But where we can differentiate those with their heads in their asses with those who are standing upright is the thought of why it did fail.


Bud Struggle, how's a say you look at my posts? Go on my profile. Look at my posts. Almost every other post is me talking about why the Soviet experience failed. yet you ignore it.

You are all trolling me. All of you. No one can be this narrow minded and stupid.

I am done. OI is fucking with me.

[Rafiq]

Quiz time!

Was Russia, under the Bolsheviks constantly under seige and sabatoge throughout it's whole history (Mainly in the 1920's?)?

Yes!

Who were the assholes responsable?

Industrialized countries like Germany and Britian!

Well, so. Surely a strong, industrialized imperial power such as Russia could have taken on those countries with the proletariat in a position of class dictatorship over the Peasant majority, right?

No! Wrong! Russia was a war torn shit hole that was about as powerful as modern day Jamaica. The mobilization of the masses was a pain and with no friends globally to help you (While the white armies had every super power on Earth) and Japan attacking from the other side, you have to take measures that leave a shit stain, you know?

So what was the problem? Was it the model that the Bolsheviks adopted after 1917?

No! That model was the only thing allowing the last crumb of any worker's power to still stand.

So why was there a class antagonism formed between the proletariat and the Party?

Because communism and proletariat power can never work in one country. The imperial powers wanted the juicy resources Russia had and they'd do anything to get those nasty Bolshie's out of power. The bureaucracy was forced to take measures, such as the NEP and ripping power from the Soviets, in order to stimulate the economy and produce an army (forced conscription) and the likes. And eventually it had to integrate with the world economy and engage in things like Imperialism.

Quiz is over!

Lesson of the day: Any Proletarian Revolution must spread in order to survive. A proletarian revolution and the abolishment of capitalism cannot exist without the DOTP.

[Robert]

Tear 'em up, Raffy!!!

You oughta go over to the History and Theory forums now. I'll bet they can appreciate you. This DOTP stuff is way over our heads.

Don't forget to write.

[Nicholas Popov]

You are now trying to piss me off, aren't you.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat was attempted how many times? The Dictatorship Of the proletariat must spread to the industrialized countries to exist, as said by Marx. Did the Dictatorship spread to the industrialized countries, asshole?

Come on, let's hear it, you dismissive prick.

Of course it didn't. Not only do you not know what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is, you dismiss it on a basis of backing up your shit, Utopian third positionist unrealistic rag of opportunistic shit of a solution to the world's problems. Stop. talking. out. Of. Your. Ass.


You amuse me to tears. Thanks, Rafiq! :thumbup:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Note how I said Join us or Stay out of our way, not Join us or die.

The implication being that if one doesn't "stay out of the way", unpleasant things will happen... Not everyone who would oppose you and those who think like you are necessarily reactionaries.


I don't think you know what I (Or any other Marxist for that matter) means by proletarian dictatorship.

The former ruling class isn't going to give up so easily. The other social classes under capitalism are not going to dissapera with the snap of your fingers. Sure, the Proletariat may be the majority of the population, but the hell if that means that there will be no counterrevolution.

If a class-conscious proletariat are in charge of things, a dictatorship is unnecessary for the purposes of suppressing counter-revolution.


You can't even use that as an argument.

The class antagonism that was formed between the Party and the Proletariat was a direct result of failure of the revolutions across Europe.

How many times must I point this out? Marx and Engels did. A dictatorship in the name of the proletariat and a dictatorship of the proletariat are two, totally different things.

Marx and Engels dropped the ball on this one. Perhaps they meant "dictatorship" in the sense of "hegemony" as Tim Finnegan pointed out, but from history it's clear what Lenin and co interpreted it as.


Russia wasn't even Industrialized, at that, and you still had a proletarian minority. The October Revolution wasn't the problem, the problem was the inability of hte proletariat of the industrialized countries (Specifically Germany in 1919) to get into a position of class dictatorship.

I mean, do you even know why Lenin declared the Soviet Union in 1924? Out of sheer desperation.

If Lenin was so desperate for proletarian power, why did he end up gutting the power of the Soviets? So much for "proletarian" dictatorship.

[Revolution starts with U]

You know, I post it so many times I was beggining to think people are getting sick and tired of it. But you know what, this makes me aware that It's just not sinking in. I hope you're not trolling me, by the way.

I've only posted it a thousand times, you incompident buffoon.


Why the Soviet experience failed.




(The Revolution must take place in the industrialized countries for the survival of the DOTP to exist. It cannot be contained) - Something Marx Stressed a lot but ignored by romanticists like yourself.


Why it failed in the other multiple attempts:



None of which were Industrialized, ergo Marx's theory stands strong.

1. Would M-L work in a developed industrialised stable country?

2. Do you think the policiy of M-Lism may have had anything to do with the Revolution not spreading?

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

What the fuck is the shit? Also, in the same spririt, where the fuck is the animals?

http://wallstreetjackass.typepad.com/raptureready/images/gorilla_style.jpg

[RGacky3]

You nailed the argument right there.

I'd vote " failed every time." Some would argue, "never been tried." And then there are those that say, "failed every time and lets bring it back again!"

Deliberate missreading of the post, he was saying the Leninist model failed everytime, and the Leninist model was'nt the socialist model.

Your either purposefully missreading it and are a grown man with a family trolling a leftist forum, which is pretty sad, or your are so stupid that you cannot understand a basic statement.

[ComradeMan]

Was Russia, under the Bolsheviks constantly under seige and sabatoge throughout it's whole history (Mainly in the 1920's?)?

Actually there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a lot of this was Stalin's paranoia- he was convinced of a Western plot out to get him that never materialised, this mentality continued until he ended up with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact... and err... the people he didn't expect to attack him in 1941 did....:rolleyes:

[Nicholas Popov]

Comrade.., look in your visitor message. :rolleyes:

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Look back: the dictatorship of proletariat inevitably turns to the cult and dictatorship of the 'puppeteer'. :thumbdown:
That's because it was the dictatorship of the party all along instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Baseball]

(The Revolution must take place in the industrialized countries for the survival of the DOTP to exist. It cannot be contained) - Something Marx Stressed a lot but ignored by romanticists like yourself.

yes, but it is also the height of utopianism and romanticism. I mean, the claim that if the proleteriat revolt is blocked ANYWHERE it means it will fail EVERYWHERE?



None of which were Industrialized, ergo Marx's theory stands strong.

Then perhaps Marx's theories on the subject are even more discredited.

[Baseball]

Marx and Engels dropped the ball on this one. Perhaps they meant "dictatorship" in the sense of "hegemony" as Tim Finnegan pointed out, but from history it's clear what Lenin and co interpreted it as.

No. They argued that since the majority of the population was the proleteriat, once in power they would be able to "dictate" future developments.
Its entirely reasonable an approach.

[Rafiq]

The implication being that if one doesn't "stay out of the way", unpleasant things will happen... Not everyone who would oppose you and those who think like you are necessarily reactionaries.

Hold. Up. Why did you say "Not everyone who would oppose you"? Do you actually think I am going to lead a proletarian revolution? I'll be dead and gone before that happens. But all those who stand in the way of a genuine proletarian revolution will, yes, have to be dealt with. I'm sorry w can't give them cookies and just openly allow them to use violent force on us :crying:



If a class-conscious proletariat are in charge of things, a dictatorship is unnecessary for the purposes of suppressing counter-revolution.


A "Class conscious Proletariat in charge" is a dictatorship. And it is twice as necessary for the counter revolution to be suppressed.



Marx and Engels dropped the ball on this one. Perhaps they meant "dictatorship" in the sense of "hegemony" as Tim Finnegan pointed out, but from history it's clear what Lenin and co interpreted it as.

Lenin interperated it no differently.




If Lenin was so desperate for proletarian power, why did he end up gutting the power of the Soviets? So much for "proletarian" dictatorship.


Because while under attack by almost every super power and the white armies it supported it, isolated in one country with no friends internationally, the "Power of the Soviets" isn't going to do well to deal with the civil war. And the Soviets still had a lot of power, by the way, but authoritarian measures were necessary to speed up production and to mobilize the masses while making sure those trying to sabatoge it (And their is undeniable evidence of agents ranging from Britian to the United States who were doing whatever possible to work against the economic measures taken by the bolsheviks).

Even your buddy Makhno took up extremely authoritarian measures to protect the "ukrainian revolution". From setting up secret police to appointing people personally himself, I don't think there is much you can do to prevent authoritarian measures, Anarchist or no Anarchist.

It's not an easy decision. You are being Naive, Noxion.

[Rafiq]

yes, but it is also the height of utopianism and romanticism. I mean, the claim that if the proleteriat revolt is blocked ANYWHERE it means it will fail EVERYWHERE?

No, of course not. Had the proletarian Revolution in Germany worked out well I don't think there would have been much problem. I mean why would you even use that as an argument? I claim the if the proletarian revolt is blocked in every industrialized country then yes, it will fail everywhere.



Then perhaps Marx's theories on the subject are even more discredited.


That doesn't even make any sense. Marx said that a successful revolution must spread to the industrialized, powerful imperialist countries. None of the "revolutions" of the 20th century took place in Powerful, imperialist countries.

Ergo Marx was correct, all of those states failed.

[Rafiq]

1. Would M-L work in a developed industrialised stable country?

Yes, because Marxism Leninism would have to shape shift into something totally different to adjust to the conditions of those industrialized countries, as the Marxism Leninism under Stalin is largely irrelevant. Ideas do not mold material conditions, Material conditions mold Ideas.

If you mean the Marxism Leninism as the puppet states of Soviet Imperialism, the Soviet Union is dead, so that wouldn't even make any sense.


2. Do you think the policiy of M-Lism may have had anything to do with the Revolution not spreading?

No, the policy of M-Lism was a result of the revolution not spreading. If you mean the Bolshevik method, then this just credits me even more. The failure of hte German proletariat was also a result of the proletariat not organizing itself off of the Bolshevik model, thus not being able to achieve class power.

[Rafiq]

Actually there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a lot of this was Stalin's paranoia- he was convinced of a Western plot out to get him that never materialised, this mentality continued until he ended up with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact... and err... the people he didn't expect to attack him in 1941 did....:rolleyes:

Stalin was paranoid, however, the USSR was constantly under siege in the 1920's, British agents did whatever they could to sabotage Soviet economic developments.

Their was "A Western Plot" but it had fuck all to do with Stalin personally. All they wanted was to get a hold of Russia's resources and recover a once powerful ally. I don't think they cared too much about Stalin.

[ComradeMan]

Stalin was paranoid, however, the USSR was constantly under siege in the 1920's, British agents did whatever they could to sabotage Soviet economic developments.

Their was "A Western Plot" but it had fuck all to do with Stalin personally. All they wanted was to get a hold of Russia's resources and recover a once powerful ally. I don't think they cared too much about Stalin.

Not according to my sources- do you have some?

[Rafiq]

Tear 'em up, Raffy!!!

You oughta go over to the History and Theory forums now. I'll bet they can appreciate you. This DOTP stuff is way over our heads.

Don't forget to write.

Since when did I care about users on the internet appreciating my posts? Never.

However I'd rather not spend time in the Opposing Ideologies section arguing with people. I don't want to get dumbed down, I'm already dumb enough, thank you. :thumbup1:

And, by the way, who told you about my age? I didn't want to tell anyone as people wouldn't take me seriously, as they don't anymore. How pathetic of you, you have to resort to dismissing me because I'm younger than you? Looks like a sign of desperation.

And Robert, by the way, I told you to piss off. So why do you still talk to me?

have fun rotting in the gulags of OI. I'm off. OI is more like a Zoo tbh, you just let everyone go crazy and babble on like Wild Animals.

[Rafiq]

Not according to my sources- do you have some?

I won't go out of my way posting all of them. It's not to hard to see, though.

[Rafiq]

Alright everyone, good bye. Feel free to reply to my posts, but I'm not going to read them, anyway.

[Revolution starts with U]

However I'd rather not spend time in the Opposing Ideologies section arguing with people. I don't want to get dumbed down, I'm already dumb enough, thank you.

have fun rotting in the gulags of OI. I'm off. OI is more like a Zoo tbh, you just let everyone go crazy and babble on like Wild Animals.

It's funny, cuz that's how I feel about a lot of the threads on the rest of the board :bored:

[ComradeMan]

I won't go out of my way posting all of them. It's not to hard to see, though.

No, please do go out of your way.... no one will mind... We can't make assertions without backing them up... and in case you're wondering whether I'm trying to "call you out"- well yes in one sense but no in another...

[Rafiq]

Fine I will when I can but thatll be the last post I put in this thread I tell ya!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hold. Up. Why did you say "Not everyone who would oppose you"? Do you actually think I am going to lead a proletarian revolution? I'll be dead and gone before that happens. But all those who stand in the way of a genuine proletarian revolution will, yes, have to be dealt with. I'm sorry w can't give them cookies and just openly allow them to use violent force on us :crying:

Don't give me that crap. You damn well know that even if the billions of proletarians were miraculously of one mind concerning goals, then there would still be disagreement over how to achieve them.


A "Class conscious Proletariat in charge" is a dictatorship.

More bullshit. A worker-dominated ultra-democratic hegemon, whatever else you may call it, cannot be a dictatorship by any reasonable definition of the term.


And it is twice as necessary for the counter revolution to be suppressed.

The counter-revolution can be surpressed by the workers armed, and thereafter should be considered a criminal matter.


Lenin interperated it no differently.

History calls you a liar. Why did Lenin not restore the power of the Soviets following the civil war?


Because while under attack by almost every super power and the white armies it supported it, isolated in one country with no friends internationally, the "Power of the Soviets" isn't going to do well to deal with the civil war. And the Soviets still had a lot of power, by the way, but authoritarian measures were necessary to speed up production and to mobilize the masses while making sure those trying to sabatoge it (And their is undeniable evidence of agents ranging from Britian to the United States who were doing whatever possible to work against the economic measures taken by the bolsheviks).

Even your buddy Makhno took up extremely authoritarian measures to protect the "ukrainian revolution". From setting up secret police to appointing people personally himself, I don't think there is much you can do to prevent authoritarian measures, Anarchist or no Anarchist.

It's not an easy decision. You are being Naive, Noxion.

The one who can't see how creeping centralisation of authority leads to the utter destruction of workers' democracy, calls me naive? Very funny.

[Nicholas Popov]

Alright everyone, good bye. Feel free to reply to my posts, but I'm not going to read them, anyway.

Rafiq, hold on!
I like enthusiasts, they accelerate a course of events. The extremism is property of youth only. But don't allow anybody to use you. Commonsense Will Conquer! :thumbup1:

[Rafiq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations#United_Kin gdom.E2.80.94Soviet_Union_relations

Here it points out how the Soviet Union broke relations with the UK in 1927 for those reasons (though It doesn't show the reasons).

Blah, I know these are not good sources. But from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

And knowing the nature of the British Bourgeoisie, I am almost certain they did anything they could to sabotage development in the Soviet Union. The Americans did it during the cold war to countries like Chile, Britain did it previously to countries like Iran before the shah.

If you study the nature of the Imperialism of those countries and how they operate, you will find they have never had an enemy that they "left alone".

As for Noxion, I said this was my last post in this thread, So I won't bother replying to you.

[Lanky Wanker]

Is it alright that I'm completely confused about this new ideology thing? :confused:

[Judicator]

Alright everyone, good bye. Feel free to reply to my posts, but I'm not going to read them, anyway.

Now that you're gone, I can say this!

THE USSR PROVES THE FAILURE OF SOCIALISM
CAPITALISM IS THE BEST ECONOMIC SYSTEM
EVERYTHING AYN RAND SAYS IS TRUE
ALL OF MARXS PREDICTIONS WERE FALSE

:tt2:

[Drosophila]

EVERYTHING AYN RAND SAYS IS TRUE


You're totally right. In a world full of selfish assholes, yes. Great job! (http://images.zap2it.com/images/tv-EP00899453/tim-and-erics-awesome-show-great-job.jpg)

[Tim Finnegan]

I'm not sure how you get from the proposition "the world is full of selfish assholes" to the conclusion "Randian metaphysics are absolutely correct", exactly.

[Burkland]

Well, you just created a new form of government :thumbup:

All it needs is a name :p

[Nicholas Popov]

Friends, if someone can assist me in essay editing, please send PM to me. :blushing:

http://modelgovernment.org/images/en.jpg

http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/

[RGacky3]

Utopians create a brave new world without pointing out how to get from A to B, or create a brave new world without understanding the actual world, thats what this is.

[Nicholas Popov]

Utopians create a brave new world without pointing out how to get from A to B, or create a brave new world without understanding the actual world, thats what this is.

Is there something constructive except criticism? :mad:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Utopians create a brave new world without pointing out how to get from A to B, or create a brave new world without understanding the actual world, thats what this is.

While I do think that Nicholas Popov's ideas require a lot more work, I also fail to understand the animosity towards "utopianism" when:

1) It's been just as successful as the so-called "scientific" approach, i.e. nothing so far in terms of establishing a classless society.

2) I'd just like to copy+paste this from a discussion in the Human Progress Group:


There is also the old split in the socialist camps between 'utopian' and 'scientific' socialists.
Utopian socialist is an umbrella term for long-term visionaries who dwell on clear goals and intricate models for educational and promotional purposes. It can also sometimes refer social escapists and disconnected commune dwelling hippes and dreamers, or people urging the rich to fund the socialist project.
Scientific socialists refer to the offshoot that thinks in rather hazy long-term goals but is more oriented on concrete short-term goals and the project of building up the sufficient agency and orientation of the working class to become the force to better their lot and build a utopia at their discretion as tasks and priorities allow at a later date when the range of possibilites become clearer in the course of the struggle. This approach has often lead to myopic super-tactical reformism.
The best is when the best of both worlds is combined and the crap in both discarded.

al8 is no longer with us, but I wanted to address this:

I don't see how building up the "agency and orientation of the working class" is necessarily incompatible with "dwell[ing] on clear goals and intricate models for educational and promotional purposes". I really don't.

To me, it looks like two ways of attacking the problem, but from different sides. The argument between "utopianism" and "scientific socialism" strikes me as being as pointless as an argument over whether it's better to mop the floor or sweep it with a broom - surely doing both, as opposed to either in isolation, would result in a cleaner floor?

[RGacky3]

Is there something constructive except criticism? :mad:

When it comes to your concept my constructive criticism is that you need a way to get from A to B, having a picture of B is'nt good enough, its useless, unless you know where we are and how to get to B from there.


1) It's been just as successful as the so-called "scientific" approach, i.e. nothing so far in terms of establishing a classless society.


movements that understand how capitalism works and fights directly against the negative aspects of capitalism are the ones that succeded. The syndicalist movement never had a utopian vision, they saw problems and class conflict and fought against them, they gave us almost all workers rights we have now and they are the basis for the whole leftist movement.


I don't see how building up the "agency and orientation of the working class" is necessarily incompatible with "dwell[ing] on clear goals and intricate models for educational and promotional purposes". I really don't.


I don't like the term "scientific socialist," it comes off as arrogant imo, but ANY socialist cause, analysis or movement MUST begin by understanding where we are, how the system works, and what to fight against, then we can work on where to go.

I think clear goals are fine, as long as they are in the context of the real world and what is going on, and specific.

But putting up a brave new world model is pointless, it won't get us anywhere, and even for education or promotional, you'll ALWAYS find holes in models, you'll always have different problems and argue over specific, I think the #1 goal in education and promotion is showing how capitalism works, and what is causing the problems and how we should fight against.

Working people are not interest in models of a brave new world, they are interested in their problems now.


To me, it looks like two ways of attacking the problem, but from different sides. The argument between "utopianism" and "scientific socialism" strikes me as being as pointless as an argument over whether it's better to mop the floor or sweep it with a broom - surely doing both, as opposed to either in isolation, would result in a cleaner floor?

Except utopianism IGNORES the problem.

[Nicholas Popov]

Why 'non-utopian' communism has died, including all socialist camp? Please think for a moment before answering.
Violently imposed regimes self-destructs, when the bludgeon weakens. And all victims were unfounded.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

movements that understand how capitalism works and fights directly against the negative aspects of capitalism are the ones that succeded. The syndicalist movement never had a utopian vision, they saw problems and class conflict and fought against them, they gave us almost all workers rights we have now and they are the basis for the whole leftist movement.

I'm not sure what definition of "success" you're using here, since there aren't any classless societies around with which to gauge that success.


I don't like the term "scientific socialist," it comes off as arrogant imo, but ANY socialist cause, analysis or movement MUST begin by understanding where we are, how the system works, and what to fight against, then we can work on where to go.

Again, that's not incompatible with the construction of models for a new society. Indeed, I would argue that such things are crucial to the construction of any models worth considering.


I think clear goals are fine, as long as they are in the context of the real world and what is going on, and specific.

But putting up a brave new world model is pointless, it won't get us anywhere, and even for education or promotional, you'll ALWAYS find holes in models,

Isn't that the whole point? A model that is not subject to criticism is worthless one.


you'll always have different problems and argue over specific, I think the #1 goal in education and promotion is showing how capitalism works, and what is causing the problems and how we should fight against.

People are capable of holding more than one idea in their heads at a time, you know.


Working people are not interest in models of a brave new world, they are interested in their problems now.

You think working class people don't also have concerns about the future?


Except utopianism IGNORES the problem.

What problem is that? The problem of what kind of society we want? Because the activism-only approach doesn't address that, it addresses more immediate issues, which is a related but nonetheless different problem.

[RGacky3]

I'm not sure what definition of "success" you're using here, since there aren't any classless societies around with which to gauge that success.


There is no objective measure of success, a socialists goal is first and formost to increase workers power and better their lives.

In that sense utopian socialism has'nt contributed one bit.


You think working class people don't also have concerns about the future?


Yes, but the future as it relates to now, inventing a brave new world does'nt tell them shit about the future unless you have a method to get from point A to B.


What problem is that? The problem of what kind of society we want? Because the activism-only approach doesn't address that, it addresses more immediate issues, which is a related but nonetheless different problem.

The problem is'nt what kind of society we want, the problem is the kind of power structures we have.


People are capable of holding more than one idea in their heads at a time, you know.


Yes, but utopian model creation is useless without analysis of what we have now, if you try and create some brave new world without analysing the power structures now your wasting your time.

in my opinion what the goals will be, what the structures will be, can and will change all the time over time, and thats a good thing.

[hatzel]

There is no objective measure of success, a socialists goal is first and formost to increase workers power and better their lives.

In that sense utopian socialism has'nt contributed one bit.

Is that necessarily so? How can we be certain?

I could write a book about some glorious future socialist society (as many utopians have done), or I could write some political pamphlet about oil monopolies or whatever. Both of these could act as 'propaganda' of sorts, attracting those who read them to the socialist cause, telling them that another world is possible (to steal a slogan from the altermondialists :p), and that this world is not to be achieved through nationalism, fascism or any other current, but through socialism. This would have the effect of swelling the ranks, increasing the power of socialist groups, perhaps resulting in more advances than would otherwise have been achieved. In which case utopian socialism will have contributed - albeit indirectly - by increasing the appeal of the socialist movement; what is to say that the writings of utopians are not as effective a means of propaganda as the rallying cries of the 'scientific' socialists?

[RGacky3]

propeganda is'nt what I"m interested in, what i'm interested in are things that are useful to revolutionaries and useful in revolutionizing the world.

Even as propeganda its silly, your essencially using a religions "you'll go to heaven" argument, but even worse, at least that argument has a means of getting there and an ideological background "God judges your moral actions and if your good you go to heaven," describing what heaven is like would be useless to even a church unless you have an understanding on how to get there and a theory of the world.

Painting some pie in the sky picture is dishonest and useless for revolutionaries, and as honest people we should appeal to peoples reason.

[RGacky3]

Don't get me wrong, I talk all the time about workers and democracy and so on, but its always specific, i.e. imagen if the workers made the decicions on compensation, workplace conditions and distribution of resrouces and so on. You woul'nt have lay offs, you would'nt have giant CEO saleries, profit would'nt be the most important thing and so on, but that vision is tied in intrinsicly with an understanding of how modern capitalism works, and it attacks the problem head on.

[Nicholas Popov]

First of all, necessary to understand that any one-sided ideology dooms society to eternal imbalance and a never-ceasing confrontation. The community consists not only of workers or only white-collar workers etc. Power-hungry mans use political speculations and the suggestible people as working material for the purpose of their own coronation. Isn't it enough of vain victims?

http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/thumbnails/thumb_democracy_or_monarchy_.jpg

But the energy of political leaders can and should be used for 'peaceful purposes'. Not the power corrupts people, but absence of control within it.
After several cycles of work '5-pointed star' will lead to an purposes of freedom fighters by natural means. She has its 'mysterious smile Mona Lisa'. Nobody read a 5-pointed star attentively. This is more abruptly than the Rubik's cube, though outwardly simple. http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/


Utopians create a brave new world without pointing out how to get from A to B, or create a brave new world without understanding the actual world, thats what this is.

Political leaders, if they are not terrorists, are very dependent on public opinion. The wide publicity and public response will force politicians to engaged this conception and to accept a new 'rules of collective play'.
It's possible to discuss the current machinations of politicians to the point of exhaustion, but the changing governance paradigm is much more usefully. Advancement and development of this idea is the shortest way to social harmony, and without unnecessary victims. This is the concrete work, i.e. the way from A to B.

Some comments:

"Привет Nicholas, good job.
Well, the issues you are putting on the table are very interesting indeed. However, there must be a whole...scientific congress of political scientists in order to express well-argued opinions on that. Anyway, I generally agree that new mechanisms are needed in order to build a new, well-structured society. Unless the various communities, or social groups, live harmoniously together, neither the majority nor minority communities will be able to prosper as they have done or wish. Its furthermore a matter of liberties and how far can they determine Society's function."

"Heya, remarkable posting. Happy I ran across it as a result of Google search, to bad it turned out on-page 7 of search results. It appears as though your making use of... I’d hate to see your useful post not be observed by other folks. All the best with your website."

"Jeffersonian Democracy Was Killed. But It Will Be Reborn.
It's but a matter of time."

I am grateful to sane people who helps me in this joint work.

[RGacky3]

First of all, necessary to understand that any one-sided ideology dooms society to eternal imbalance and a never-ceasing confrontation. The community consists not only of workers or only white-collar workers etc. Power-hungry mans use political speculations and the suggestible people as working material for the purpose of their own coronation. Isn't it enough of vain victims?


What the hell is a one-sided ideology? Socialists see the problems in capitalism and want to replace it with something else .... Is that one sided?

Who the hell here is defending power hungry men?


Political leaders, if they are not terrorists, are very dependent on public opinion. The wide publicity and public response will force politicians to engaged this conception and to accept a new 'rules of collective play'.
It's possible to discuss the current machinations of politicians to the point of exhaustion, but the changing governance paradigm is much more usefully. Advancement and development of this idea is the shortest way to social harmony, and without unnecessary victims. This is the concrete work, i.e. the way from A to B.


Political leaders are dependant on whatever the most powerful pressure is, be it military, financial, industrial OR the people.

This is not concrete work, all you've done is said "I have a new political model, just force politicians to do this and you'll be fine." This is so devoid of economic analysis and understanding of how capitalism works and its influence on the political process its impossible to take it seriously.

I mean for goodness sake, your webpage is called "model government," how more utopian could you get?

All it is, is a cheap critique of the Stalinist mode of government and then broadly calling that "communism" and then "capitalism," and then trying to create some stable model as if you could just impliment it and keep it going, as if society does'nt evolve, and then you just have some attempt at a simply republican system, without ever addressing the real contradictions in capital, without discussing how these things would be enforced, or how a system could be brought about NOW.

I mean I honestly don't know what your trying to accomplish with this. Its almost as if your trying to design some computer game or something.

[Nicholas Popov]

What the hell is a one-sided ideology? Socialists see the problems in capitalism and want to replace it with something else .... Is that one sided?

Who the hell here is defending power hungry men? ...

The obsession happens an useful quality of character sometimes but she is worthy the best application in this case. :thumbdown:

“Неплохо б помнить прытким молодцам,
Природой и судьбою кто обижен:
Когда война объявлена дворцам,
Она дойдет чуть позже и до хижин.” Э. Севрус

"When war is declared in palaces,
it will get to the huts a bit later." E. Sevrus

[RGacky3]

What does that mean? It does'nt make any sense.

Anyway, I think its silly and a waste of time, to try and come up with some perfect governmental model seperated from the material conditions and struggles as if you were designing a garden layout.

[Nicholas Popov]

What does that mean? It does'nt make any sense.

Anyway, I think its silly and a waste of time, to try and come up with some perfect governmental model seperated from the material conditions and struggles as if you were designing a garden layout.

This means that your prospective future became an the sad past for Russia already. Time for the analysis and useful conclusions has come. The new governance paradigm will allow to avoid repeat errors. :trotski:

[RGacky3]

This means that your prospective future became an the sad past for Russia already. Time for the analysis and useful conclusions has come. The new governance paradigm will allow to avoid repeat errors. :trotski:

No, I'm not a Leninist, not bt a long shot.

Your Utopian bullshit and Leninism ARE NOT THE ONLY OPTIONS. Btw, Leninism was not an error, its not like the bolsheviks ACCIDENTLY set up a totalitarian regime, they did it on purpose.

Comming up with governance paradigms does'nt help anyone with anything.

[Nicholas Popov]

No, I'm not a Leninist, not bt a long shot.

Your Utopian bullshit and Leninism ARE NOT THE ONLY OPTIONS. Btw, Leninism was not an error, its not like the bolsheviks ACCIDENTLY set up a totalitarian regime, they did it on purpose.

Comming up with governance paradigms does'nt help anyone with anything.

From the very beginning I have learned about it in your tendency: Anarcho-Syndicalist.
Anarchy is vulnerable before any organized structure. Remember destiny of romanticist Nestor Makhno in Ukraine.

Densely clenched fist will win. http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/5-fist.jpg But it will be force and wisdom of 5.

[RGacky3]

From the very beginning I have learned about it in your tendency: Anarcho-Syndicalist.
Anarchy is vulnerable before any organized structure. Remember destiny of romanticist Nestor Makhno in Ukraine.


I'm a syndicalist, an anarchist and a socialist, not dogmatic in either of them, and I support ideas that are useful for working class liberation.


But it will be force and wisdom of 5.

It almost seams like your trying to make this a religion, you seam incapable of talking in concrete ways and making useful analysis.

[Nicholas Popov]

I'm a syndicalist, an anarchist and a socialist, not dogmatic in either of them, and I support ideas that are useful for working class liberation.
It almost seams like your trying to make this a religion, you seam incapable of talking in concrete ways and making useful analysis.


I went from the worker to 'white-collar' and back. This are only a conditionalities.
Excuse, I discuss problems of management with the Englishman now.

[RGacky3]

I went from the worker to 'white-collar' and back. This are only a conditionalities.


So? What does that have to do with anything?

[Nicholas Popov]

So? What does that have to do with anything?

The hard roll of money in your pocket will change your outlook and interests. You will become those whom you consider as the enemy now. Whether you will be subject to be shot?

[RGacky3]

The hard roll of money in your pocket will change your outlook and interests. You will become those whom you consider as the enemy now. Whether you will be subject to be shot?

You obviously don't have the ability to follow a discussion, your just writing irrelivant shit and not responding to anything.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think he said you will give up socialism when you get rich...?

There are some people on this board I suspect that is true of. But I have never sensed that from the Gack.

[Comrade Hill]

Look back: the dictatorship of proletariat inevitably turns to the cult and dictatorship of the 'puppeteer'. :thumbdown:
Ask yourself: why should leaders do not love intelligency so much and why they speculate on a hegemony of the proletariat? Possibly you can find the answer ...
http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/which-of-the-ideologies-and-government-really-serves-for-people.html


Would you rather worship this?

http://www.marshu.com/articles/images-website/articles/presidents-on-us-paper-money/one-dollar-bill-large.jpg

http://www.hermes-press.com/rich2.jpg

And also, where is this dictatorship of the proletariat that you are talking about? They were all revolutions against fuedal societies.

[RGacky3]

I think he said you will give up socialism when you get rich...?


I get thats what he said, but thats not a response to anything I said ...

[Nicholas Popov]

Would you rather worship this?

http://www.marshu.com/articles/images-website/articles/presidents-on-us-paper-money/one-dollar-bill-large.jpg

And also, where is this dictatorship of the proletariat that you are talking about? They were all revolutions against fuedal societies.

I worship the common sense. Proletariat dictatorship in Russia has ended in dictatorship of the shepherd in flock, who was free to kill naive sheep at own discretion. About my social status and perception of money: http://www.modelgovernment.org/en/

http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/thumbnails/thumb_great-stalin1.jpg http://www.modelgovernment.org/images/thumbnails/thumb_katyn-massacre9.jpg