Imagining communism

[Questionable]

Do you consider it a weakness to not be able to predict communism beyond the the generalized outline (Classless, stateless, free association of producers)?

I was a bit shocked today when I realized how little I think about communism as a historical stage. Most of my attention goes towards current matters, the crises facing capitalism and the workers' movement, what must be done to create the dictatorship of the proletariat and then socialism.

However, recently a newcomer to communism was asking me questions about what the historical period of communism would be like, very specific questions like how a communist world would deal with scarcity, that kind of thing, and I really didn't know what to tell him beyond vague statements like, "Well, scarcity would be dealt with democratically..." When I admitted that there wasn't any way of knowing for sure, the person told me that it was dangerous to overthrow the current society without having full plan. I countered that we did have an immediate plan, that being the DotP and socialism, but that predicting what would happen 100 years in the future was impossible, and even the bourgeois revolutions didn't plan that far ahead, they just dealt with immediate class matters.

Does this reflect a weakness in my theory, or is it foolish to try and presume too much about communism when there's no real way to know for sure? Is it more important to understand issues closer to us? What should we say to people who ask specific questions regarding communism?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No one will truly know what a future society might look like, the bourgeoisie certainly didn't know what capitalism would develop into. Same general direction is applied to communism: we know the basic outlines and such will be enough to deal with all pressing problems (as such will be solved in the struggle to attain communism while still at teh socialist stage). Your friend's comments sound typical but he fails to understand that the problems we face will be solved one step at a time as we progress: there is no leaping forward from one system to a dramatically different one.

I do not think it is weakness to try and think about what communism will entail beyond the obvious but I also do not think it is a very productive use of time. Personally I would spend my mental efforts trying to tackle problems related to building socialism and theory to help potentially clear road-blocks while working towards communism.

[Avanti]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-according-avanti-t176466/index.html

[Questionable]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-according-avanti-t176466/index.html

This is philosophical jargon that doesn't tell us anything about the economics of communism.

[Avanti]

communism

is post-economics

post-scarcity

post-civilization

it is

the dream of a mythical golden age

schlaraffenland

eutopia

paradise

the new zion

the messianic kingdom of humanity

it cannot be defined by words

it is a state of bliss

marxism was an attempt to present messianic dreams

with scientific terms

but scientific terms

kill the mind

communism is poetry

[Yuppie Grinder]

Social engineering is a trap. Marx intentionally wrote about socialism in vague terms hoping he would be revised and expanded upon.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Social engineering is a trap. Marx intentionally wrote about socialism in vague terms hoping he would be revised and expanded upon.

I think that is a stretch to make. Besides, I believe he had a clear cut idea on what socialism entailed: workers controlling their workplaces and sharing society's wealth communally. (In short)

[Yuppie Grinder]

I think that is a stretch to make. Besides, I believe he had a clear cut idea on what socialism entailed: workers controlling their workplaces and sharing society's wealth communally. (In short)

That's a pretty vague and non-specific idea. There are lots of conceivable ways that could be organized and lots of ways to get there. Whatever is the most efficient way to seize state power and construct socialism in your historical context is the correct Marxist way. Personally, I believe the proletariat must be organized into a party of its own to do so, but I wouldn't dismiss someone who believed in an alternative as anti-Marxist.

[ckaihatsu]

I happen to think that that's a valid inquiry -- to look into possible feasible scenarios, given the potential realization of basic orthodox Marxist proletarian principles.

I think there's something of political "tastes" involved here, too, since we all have our own interests and emphases in regards to political activity -- you and the newcomer are obviously looking at different timeframes. To focus more on the present is to see the task that remains in front of us and to argue for revolutionary organization. But to look at the potential future is to work out a lot of the particulars, both "empirically" and socially-politically, for oneself.

(A little trick here is to turn the question back to the asker, since it's the topic that they obviously want to talk about the most, anyway. "How *should* scarcity be handled, do you think?")








I respectfully have *minor* differences with comrades on this point of whether a society of proletarian dictatorship can be "outlined" in advance, or not.

While employing potential frameworks for the sake of illustration and explanation can be readily dismissed as 'abstract' -- and they are -- the purpose is *not* one of *prediction*, but rather for a material-based, reasoning-based *summation* of what would be *possible*, given consistent material societal realities that would continue to exist into the indefinite future. It may be thought-of as a 'futurist political anthropology', if you like, for lack of a better term.

[Weezer]

communism

is post-economics

post-scarcity

post-civilization

it is

the dream of a mythical golden age

schlaraffenland

eutopia

paradise

the new zion

the messianic kingdom of humanity

it cannot be defined by words

it is a state of bliss

marxism was an attempt to present messianic dreams

with scientific terms

but scientific terms

kill the mind

communism is poetry

Shut the fuck up

[LiberationTheologist]

Of course it is naive and foolish to be in communist party without specific plans. Any self labelled communist or communist party without specific plans of what should be done is counterproductive and worthless. We need real solutions and not vague ridiculous idealizations.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Of course it is naive and foolish to be in communist party without specific plans. Any self labelled communist or communist party without specific plans of what should be done is counterproductive and worthless. We need real solutions and not vague ridiculous idealizations.

Please explain, comrade, how a revolutionary organization not having a conception of how communism will be impact their manners of reaching a classless, stateless society.

[Blake's Baby]

Because when people say 'so what's your goal then?' and they reply 'communism' and then the people say 'like in Russia?' and they say 'no, not like that', and then the people say 'like what then?' and they say 'we don't really know, but it'll have lovely ice-cream awesomness' they end up looking silly.

We have to have a conception of what post-capitalist society will be like. We may not have a fully developed blueprint of how it will work, but we have to have to have some idea about the general territory.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Because when people say 'so what's your goal then?' and they reply 'communism' and then the people say 'like in Russia?' and they say 'no, not like that', and then the people say 'like what then?' and they say 'we don't really know, but it'll have lovely ice-cream awesomness' they end up looking silly.

We have to have a conception of what post-capitalist society will be like. We may not have a fully developed blueprint of how it will work, but we have to have to have some idea about the general territory.

But we already have the outline of a post-capitalist society: we know the general specifics and can answer these people now. The specific traits are impossible to figure out because none of us can tell the future but we do know how it will look (hence the tendencies).

[Blake's Baby]

You didn't ask about 'specific traits', you said 'a conception of how communism will be'. We have 'a conception of how communism will be', what we don't have (quite rightly) is a plan of the 'specific traits'.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I never asked about specific traits (or anything really)...

[Jimmie Higgins]

As far as the specifics of what daily life or institutions in a classless stateless society would look like, I agree that it is foolhardy to try and realistically predict. At the same time I think there is some value to having some utopian vision as long as it's with the understanding that it is nothing more than a fantastical speculation.

Speculation on how things could be different under the conditions of communist life is useful in highlighting the conditions of capitalist life in relief. Modernist utopias, for example, inherently criticize the chaos of society and production technology making men into servants of machines by presenting worlds where things are decided rationally (how depends on the poliitcal - class - outlook of the utopian author) and technology is used to serve the needs of humanity and create leisure, not regimented labor and speed-ups.

[Blake's Baby]

I never asked about specific traits (or anything really)...


... The specific traits are impossible to figure out...

Do you even read your own posts?

[ckaihatsu]

[I] think there is some value to having some utopian vision as long as it's with the understanding that it is nothing more than a fantastical speculation.


Sorry to be 'the guy', but this first part is at odds with the rest of your post -- you outline the social-material *positives* with the common element (of critique) running through all of the narratives' premises, but then you had *already* roundly dismissed utopian vision as cool-as-long-as-we-know-it's-only-fantastical.





Speculation on how things could be different under the conditions of communist life is useful in highlighting the conditions of capitalist life in relief. Modernist utopias, for example, inherently criticize the chaos of society and production technology making men into servants of machines by presenting worlds where things are decided rationally (how depends on the poliitcal - class - outlook of the utopian author) and technology is used to serve the needs of humanity and create leisure, not regimented labor and speed-ups.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Do you even read your own posts?

What is your problem? The two posts were coherent with everything I have said: I never asked for specific details because said details are impossible to figure out. Do you have a problem with that or are you going to shit on every little thing I say simply because you can't interpret posts?

[TheOther]

Beware of perfectionist marxists, like anarchists, luxemburgists and trotskists. If you are not like them, and if they have more than 4000 posts, they will ban you. They claim they are real democratic. But you imagine a fascist dictatorship of anarchists, ultra-leftists and trotskists? I think it would be worse than Stalin and Hitler




Do you consider it a weakness to not be able to predict communism beyond the the generalized outline (Classless, stateless, free association of producers)?

I was a bit shocked today when I realized how little I think about communism as a historical stage. Most of my attention goes towards current matters, the crises facing capitalism and the workers' movement, what must be done to create the dictatorship of the proletariat and then socialism.

However, recently a newcomer to communism was asking me questions about what the historical period of communism would be like, very specific questions like how a communist world would deal with scarcity, that kind of thing, and I really didn't know what to tell him beyond vague statements like, "Well, scarcity would be dealt with democratically..." When I admitted that there wasn't any way of knowing for sure, the person told me that it was dangerous to overthrow the current society without having full plan. I countered that we did have an immediate plan, that being the DotP and socialism, but that predicting what would happen 100 years in the future was impossible, and even the bourgeois revolutions didn't plan that far ahead, they just dealt with immediate class matters.

Does this reflect a weakness in my theory, or is it foolish to try and presume too much about communism when there's no real way to know for sure? Is it more important to understand issues closer to us? What should we say to people who ask specific questions regarding communism?

[Blake's Baby]

What is your problem? The two posts were coherent with everything I have said: I never asked for specific details because said details are impossible to figure out. Do you have a problem with that or are you going to shit on every little thing I say simply because you can't interpret posts?

Communication is about the exchange of ideas. If you can't understand my posts, it's because I haven't expressed my ideas clearly enough. Conversely, if I can't understand your posts, it's because...?

Knowing what the 'specific traits' are - which you mentioned, then said you hadn't, as I've shown from the quotes above - is not the same as having 'a conception of how communism will be' - which you also mentioned - and no amount of pretending that they mean same thing to the casual (or even committed) observer can be sustained, just because you can't be arsed to construct an argument, but can be arsed, it seems to defend the lack of argumentation, instead of just going 'oh, yeah, I see, it wasn't very clear, what I mean is...' and actually taking the effort to construct a lucid argument.

Come on Ralph, I have faith that you can do it, like the little train that wants to get up that hill.

[Ravachol]

Yes, because the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism was the result of a carefully laid out blueprint weighing the merits of one mode of production against the other before making this 'dangerous call'. You know what's dangerous? The positive feedback loop climate change will enter in about give or take 50 years if the rule of capital and its growth paradigm will still be around.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, because the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism was the result of a carefully laid out blueprint weighing the merits of one mode of production against the other before making this 'dangerous call'.

I'd argue that the fact that the transition to capitalism wasn't planned or intended on any significant level is a major factor in why it is so crap. Like how evolution by natural selection gave us dodgy knees, bad backs and a non-zero risk of choking every time we eat, but an intelligently designed organism would lack such glaring flaws.


You know what's dangerous? The positive feedback loop climate change will enter in about give or take 50 years if the rule of capital and its growth paradigm will still be around.

This has nothing to do with whether the transition to a post-capitalist society should be directed or not, since (assuming you're correct) in 50 years if no significant progress is made then it may be too late either way.

[Blake's Baby]

I think Ravchol was sarcastically pointing out that social changes do not necessarily happen on the basis of people having a clear idea of where they're going, whether that's the transition from feudalism to capitalism (which had been going on for hundreds of years before the 'bourgeois revolutions') or the transition from a habitable planet to global environmental catastrophe.

I'd actually disagree with the basic thrust however, and say that to a degree the proletarian revolution must be at least partly conscious of itself, because unlike capitalism incubating away in feudalism, socialism can't build a power-base inside capitalism, it must be the self-conscious activity of the working class actingboth for itself and the rest of humanity, so there is an extent to which people must be convinced of 'socialism' before the revolution. Not to the extent of the SPGB's 'making socialists until n/2+1 = revolutionary voting', but certainly to the extent that class consciousness and a recognition that capitalism needs to be overthrown are necessary ingredients.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Communication is about the exchange of ideas. If you can't understand my posts, it's because I haven't expressed my ideas clearly enough. Conversely, if I can't understand your posts, it's because...?

You skim over comments without actually reading to understand the position of the person you are talking with?


Knowing what the 'specific traits' are - which you mentioned, then said you hadn't,

I never mentioned knowing any "specific traits" so do not put words in my mouth.


as I've shown from the quotes above - is not the same as having 'a conception of how communism will be' - which you also mentioned

Again, I never mentioned anything relating to how the finer traits of communism might be, so quit it.

We just have differing definitions, I think. My definition of specific traits are unknowable details which arise from society's ultimate progression while yours is the more apparent facts. If yours is in fact the latter than of course we can know "specific traits" but if not than no, we couldn't because such contradictions have yet to be resolved (we can guess but never know). I think we are on the same page.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, as it seems you don't even read what you have written, even though you expect other people to:


But we already have the outline of a post-capitalist society: we know the general specifics...

You do realise that the term 'general specifics' is an oxymoron, don't you? No matter how many times any of us read it, it cannot refer to anything at all, as something 'specific' cannot also be something 'general'.



... and can answer these people now. The specific traits are impossible to figure out...

This is where you mention 'specific traits', can you read that?


... because none of us can tell the future but we do know how it will look (hence the tendencies).

So we can't 'tell' the future but we 'know how it will look'.

Please, I've read this maybe 12 times, explain what it means, because I'm only a dumb peon who can't get why we can have an outline of general specifics but not specifics because we can see but not tell the future and can answer but have tendencies.

I wouldn't mind, really, if you could construct a coherent argument, in fact I'd welcome it, but honestly it's a bit like arguing with a nine-year-old.

Express your thought clearly; and by that I mean, clearly so that other people can understand you, instead of just splurging words on a page, which may be perfectly clear to you, but then again, you presumably know what you're trying to say. Try some sustained argument, and if people ask for clarification, clarify, instead of saying 'you is too stupid and lazy to understand I am the soul of generally specific clarity'. Really. You're not a child.

[Grenzer]

Hello my friend . i think that psychorigid marxists like anarchists, trotskists, and ultra leftists are wrong and that Chavez is right!!!


Beware of perfectionist marxists, like anarchists, luxemburgists and trotskists. If you are not like them, and if they have more than 4000 posts, they will ban you. They claim they are real democratic. But you imagine a fascist dictatorship of anarchists, ultra-leftists and trotskists? I think it would be worse than Stalin and Hitler

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Trotskistmarx, do you have anything better to do than stalk this forum and make sock puppets? I will give it to you though, you are committed.

[hatzel]

if they have more than 4000 posts, they will ban you

Interesting that you say that, because this is actually my 4000th post...

I certainly think we're well within our rights to maintain a healthy scepticism when it comes to all these old utopian visions, blueprints for a future world just waiting to be actualised; there is always a threat contained in such projects. At the same time we need to recognise that new utopianisms are now emerging - not simply new blueprints, but fundamentally different forms of utopia, grappling with the very impossibility of any utopian paradigm. Or, one could say, utopias in the death of utopia: not a specified oasis on the horizon but the horizon itself, multi-directional and yet always pushed back, necessarily out of reach. It's a pluralistic, non-totalising sense of utopian desire, one which constantly eludes conceptual grasping, and yet bursts forth in moments of intensity beyond our finger tips. Perhaps it would be fair to call it an ever-present potentially rather than a future possibility, a complete openness to a utopia to come - howsoever it may come - in open defiance of the very impossibility of its coming...we should notice such a sentiment rising, and need to embrace it, not drawing blueprints, but chasing after those momentary flashes we are always 'just too late for'...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well, as it seems you don't even read what you have written, even though you expect other people to:



You do realise that the term 'general specifics' is an oxymoron, don't you? No matter how many times any of us read it, it cannot refer to anything at all, as something 'specific' cannot also be something 'general'.




This is where you mention 'specific traits', can you read that?



So we can't 'tell' the future but we 'know how it will look'.

Please, I've read this maybe 12 times, explain what it means, because I'm only a dumb peon who can't get why we can have an outline of general specifics but not specifics because we can see but not tell the future and can answer but have tendencies.

I wouldn't mind, really, if you could construct a coherent argument, in fact I'd welcome it, but honestly it's a bit like arguing with a nine-year-old.

Express your thought clearly; and by that I mean, clearly so that other people can understand you, instead of just splurging words on a page, which may be perfectly clear to you, but then again, you presumably know what you're trying to say. Try some sustained argument, and if people ask for clarification, clarify, instead of saying 'you is too stupid and lazy to understand I am the soul of generally specific clarity'. Really. You're not a child.


Ah, you see, this is where we are on the wrong foot: you describe post-capitalism as communism while I take the more realistic road and describe it as socialism. We can know what socialism will look like (more or less) but not the specifics of communism. This is because socialism is closer to where we are know and can envision what the specifics might entail.

Honestly, stop with the condescension: this is the second time this week I have been scolded by ultra-leftists for minor shit and it simply makes you all look like a bunch of pompous assholes, so please ditch the attitude.

[Blake's Baby]

I've got 'attitude' because you're not clear about what you're writing?

Instead of telling other people to drop the 'attitude' why don't you try to write clearly and if you don't manage it, fess up and take the criticism, instead of whining? The rest of us manage it.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I've got 'attitude' because you're not clear about what you're writing?

Instead of telling other people to drop the 'attitude' why don't you try to write clearly and if you don't manage it, fess up and take the criticism, instead of whining? The rest of us manage it.

Or you could stop engaging every small comment and learn to read what others write. I was explicit in my intent. If you cannot see that such is your own problem.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Interesting that you say that, because this is actually my 4000th post...

I certainly think we're well within our rights to maintain a healthy scepticism when it comes to ......Revolution? That's it: BANNED.

(Wait, hey do we have to wait for the 4001st post for auto-ban* to kick in?)


I certainly think we're well within our rights to maintain a healthy scepticism when it comes to all these old utopian visions, blueprints for a future world just waiting to be actualised; there is always a threat contained in such projects. At the same time we need to recognise that new utopianisms are now emerging - not simply new blueprints, but fundamentally different forms of utopia, grappling with the very impossibility of any utopian paradigm. Or, one could say, utopias in the death of utopia: not a specified oasis on the horizon but the horizon itself, multi-directional and yet always pushed back, necessarily out of reach. It's a pluralistic, non-totalising sense of utopian desire, one which constantly eludes conceptual grasping, and yet bursts forth in moments of intensity beyond our finger tips. Perhaps it would be fair to call it an ever-present potentially rather than a future possibility, a complete openness to a utopia to come - howsoever it may come - in open defiance of the very impossibility of its coming...we should notice such a sentiment rising, and need to embrace it, not drawing blueprints, but chasing after those momentary flashes we are always 'just too late for'... I think this is definately the trend in contemporary utopian thinking - at least for the marxist and left-wing new-utopians. Partially it's a synthesis of modernist utopianism and post-modern distopian/anti-utopianism. Today people reject pomo dismisal of utopia while responding to and adapting some of the valuable critiques that pomo had of modernist utopias into new utopian visions. One approach (which I tend to see as a more liberal version) is to just "problematize" utopia: to present an ideal world but then show how maybe some people are still oppressed or new problems emerge (based I guess on inherent human failings or the idea that life without contemporary conflicts and problems would be suffocatingly boring). Another approach I think is to introduce some ambiguity to break the sense of there being "one form" for a utopian world or that utopia is somehow inevitable or even describable to us. (Afterall think about when Europeans began colonization and how they had their minds blown by alternative assumptions and organization in other cultures - they were revolted, shocked, or inspired. If we could actually glimpse a real utopian future, there would definately be some similar cultural-shock). I think that's the best combination of the modernist optomism and striving, while not ignoring some of the criticisms of modernist utopia. Basically what hatzel said in the above quote.

As I said before I think in any utopian vision there is an inherent critique of contemporary society through an implicit contrast between what is and what could be (either already through reorganization of society, or potentially within concievable technological advances). But this also means the assumptions of the autor, and the conditions of the time the utopia are created weigh heavily on the specific form of utopia. So a petty-bourgois influenced utopia might focus more on just rationalizing present society, a technocratic utopia. That utopianist who thinks he will live forver (I can't remember his name) is in this vein and the market is a big part of his utopian vision - except it would be rationalized through new technology so that human passions wouldn't corrupt the market - I guess. Most of the kitchy modernist utopias mocked later are also in this vein and what people mock about them is the idea that "science" would be basis for organizing society. After the A-bomb and the rationalized genocide by the NAZIs people found that idea less appealing somehow.

So at any rate, I think this is the basic contradiction in utopian fiction and prediction alike. A "universal" vision is impossible until there is a real "universal" society - without that what someone who makes their living off of creative labor and what someone who makes their living off of wage-labor and someone who makes their living off of running a business are going to have pretty different ideas of what an ideal society might be like. And also they are bound to be impressionistic: looking at what's shit today and imagining a better alternative specifically is going to be somewhat narrow just because of that limited perspective.





*I hear you can drive at any speed you want on the auto-ban... waka-waka.

[Blake's Baby]

Or you could stop engaging every small comment and learn to read what others write. I was explicit in my intent. If you cannot see that such is your own problem.

you may have been clear to yourself, but not to your audience. Now, you can make excuses for that ('oh noes! I have the wrong sort of audience wot cannot udnerstanad my GRATE THORTS wot I is deliverin'!) or you can just say 'yes, you're right, it wasn't clear' like an adult would. Come on, grow up a little, admit that even you can get something wrong, and stop trying to make your own failings the fault of others.

[Soomie]

It's hard to say what a communist society will look like. No true communist society has ever existed, so we're not exactly able to compare theory to practice. What we do know is that is will be a classless, stateless society where the means of production are in the hands of the state.

The state is everyone. There is no government, or ruling class. The environment will be better protected. Technology will advance as a way of replacing some of the work that people do, so that the work can be done more efficiently and people have more time to do their own thing.

Education up to the graduate level will be free and available to everyone. Everyone will have access to food, water, shelter, and healthcare.

I mean, your question is very broad and it might be easier if you ask specific questions, though like many have already stated, communism is just a theory. We can't say for sure "how" it will look.

One thing you can do is look at communism on a small scale to get a very basic and primitive view of it in practice. Take a look at primitive communism and egalitarian communities (http://thefec.org).

[Soomie]

Do you consider it a weakness to not be able to predict communism beyond the the generalized outline (Classless, stateless, free association of producers)?

I was a bit shocked today when I realized how little I think about communism as a historical stage. Most of my attention goes towards current matters, the crises facing capitalism and the workers' movement, what must be done to create the dictatorship of the proletariat and then socialism.

However, recently a newcomer to communism was asking me questions about what the historical period of communism would be like, very specific questions like how a communist world would deal with scarcity, that kind of thing, and I really didn't know what to tell him beyond vague statements like, "Well, scarcity would be dealt with democratically..." When I admitted that there wasn't any way of knowing for sure, the person told me that it was dangerous to overthrow the current society without having full plan. I countered that we did have an immediate plan, that being the DotP and socialism, but that predicting what would happen 100 years in the future was impossible, and even the bourgeois revolutions didn't plan that far ahead, they just dealt with immediate class matters.

Does this reflect a weakness in my theory, or is it foolish to try and presume too much about communism when there's no real way to know for sure? Is it more important to understand issues closer to us? What should we say to people who ask specific questions regarding communism?

Also, what sort of scarcity did he or she mean? Food scarcity? Worldhunger.org states the following:

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find.(FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.

Exactly how long we could support everyone in the world is another question. I've actually been considering how communism would deal with overpopulation. If we're providing basic needs to allow people to live comfortably and safely while prolonging their life, we're setting ourselves up for problems. I think, horrible though it may be, we may need to something similar to China and allow only one child per family, at least in the beginning. I don't know how else to get around this when we're taking out factors that exist for other animals in nature to control population...

[TheGodlessUtopian]

you may have been clear to yourself, but not to your audience. Now, you can make excuses for that ('oh noes! I have the wrong sort of audience wot cannot udnerstanad my GRATE THORTS wot I is deliverin'!) or you can just say 'yes, you're right, it wasn't clear' like an adult would. Come on, grow up a little, admit that even you can get something wrong, and stop trying to make your own failings the fault of others.

This is ironic since you are the one who couldn't understand my post and had to drag it out and attempt to turn it around on me with the whole "write better" nonsense. Honestly, just stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

[Blake's Baby]

I have no embarrasment. I'm also quite happy to apologise when I've posted something other people haven't understood, as it's obviously my fault for not writing clearly, and then I attempt to clarify it. Equally, if you write so that you're not understood, it's because you haven't written clearly, and should attempt to clarify it, rather than claiming it was the reader's fault. Admit it, move on with your life, then this will stop. What do you think I'm going to do, go 'nurr-ne-hurr, I made TGU admit it done a stupid'? Really, do you think you look more magisterial by neurotically insisting you never make mistakes, that all errors are down the failings of others? You look foolish and childish. Admit you wrote unclearly, admit you were unjustified in claiming that your audience was to blame, and get on with your life, a humbler, wiser person. You know it's the only reasonable way forward.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Again, you make the mistake that the world revolves around you: I was clear in my intent. No one else asked for clarification, only you. Stop dragging this absurdity out and leave it be. You seem to be obsessed or something.

[Blake's Baby]

Nah, not obssessed, just think people should be able to admit that they're wrong, instead of blaming other people. Obviously, as I was the one you blamed, it's personally peeved me, but really it's more about seeing how far you'll go to avoid having to admit that you were less than clear. It can stop any time you like, you have to admit you didn't express yourself clearly and that you thought you'd blame someone else for that, and then you can grow as a human being and learn from it.

Or you can continue to say that there was nothing imprecise ambigious or badly-thought-out in what you wrote, somewhat in the manner of a sulky child, and I'll just post something else afterwards about how, really, you should own your mistakes. I wouldn't even post after you if you did admit it; I'd just let it go. But, I'm not going to let you talk bollocks and let it go unchallenged.

Really, I'd have thought you'd want it to stop, because every time I do this people are going to go, 'oh, yeah, TGU is a bit of an arse', but if you just fess up, it'll end and we can draw a viel over it. So, if you want it to continue, and wnat to continue reminding people that you really are a bit of an arse, please post something underneath about how you're a limpid pool of clarity and totally clear to everyone but me so it's my fault.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

My god you are an ego-maniac: someone takes you up and reveals your inability to read a single post and instead of simply saying your read it wrong you had to drag out this entire thread with vague and immature assertions, not only that, but deride other people along the way. If this is such an annoyance than why are you even responding? For the love of science get over yourself.

[Blake's Baby]

Deriding what people? I've not derided anyone on this thread. I've tried to get you to admit that you were less than clear and then decided to blame me for it, but I don't think I've even mentioned anyone else.

Why am I bothering? As I already said, perhaps not clearly enough so I apologise for that (I'll try to be clearer), I don't think you should blame other people for your shortcomings and I'm going to keep mentioning it until you accept that. Once you do, I'll happily stop as it's not about getting the last word, just about not letting you get away with blaming me (or by implication anyone else) for your insufficiencies.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Funny since you were the one who started in on the whole "not being clear enough" shtick after you failed to realize that our conceptions of post-capitalism were different. As I have repeatedly said: I have been crystal clear and to everyone who knows my politics this is apparent.

[Blake's Baby]

That must be why, on going back to check posts 12 and 13 in this thread, no-one has thanked you post, but 7 people have currently thanked mine. Obviously that's because you're so clear that people don't need to thank you, but I'm so confused that people feel they need to encourage me.

No-one knows what your politics are TGU, you have (A)-symbols next to hammer'n'sickles for monkeys' sake. You post bollocks about having no conception of what communism will look like and then claim that you meant we can't know what the specifics look like ('general specifics' even), as if 'a conception' of communism is the same as the 'specifics' of communism - it's as clear as an alcoholic's piss.

Well, continue with your political piss-gravy, if you like, but I'll keep posting to tell you you're talking shit.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You know likes mean nothing, so do not even go there: they are representatives of people who sympathize with your politics, nothing more. Then my sig: the contradictory symbols are for unity in the study guide project, you know that (or should know that). As for my politics you could look on my profile.

Is this all, or are you going to bring in yet another pointless diversion?

[Blake's Baby]

But according to you, your politics are limpidly clear (and no-one likes them) whereas mine are bsed on not reading, and yet, people seem to sympathise with that. Are you now claiming that the people who liked the post where I first pulled you up over your imprecisions are also non-reading ignorers of limpid clarity too?

Let's just have the post over again:


Please explain, comrade, how a revolutionary organization not having a conception of how communism will be impact their manners of reaching a classless, stateless society.

Are you seriously claiming that this is 'crystal clear'? It doesn't even have basic grammatical subject/verb agreement, there are clauses in there that aren't differentiated in any way from the main body of the sentence, you use the word 'manners' when presumably you mean 'manner' and you use the word 'conception', though you later have to clarify that by 'conception' you meant 'general specifics' (which is an oxymoron), or more specifically 'specifics'.

It's really not clear. Dude. Read. Parse. Take on board criticism. Learn and grow. Become a better person.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A inquiry to a comrade does not count as my personal politics. It was a clarifying statement, not a statement of intent (something you should have seen). My clarity can be found in my first post in the thread, not in the inquiry statement.

[Blake's Baby]

So your answers are clear, but your questions (I think that's what you mean by 'inquiry statement' anyway) are allowed to be jibberish, is that what you're saying?

Well, at least you've moved away from the 'I AM ALWAYS CLEAR' nonsense... I swear, you just grew up a little bit!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No that is clear, what would you call it, a question? :lol: