Race, Culture, Needs to be obilerated

[Logical seal]

I'm sick of all this *multi-cultural* crap :glare:


There should be no destinations of humans like *latino* *black* *white* we should refer to everyone as a *sentient being* not human becuse we might creact sentient beings in the future.

Cultural norms, To, Are but obsticles to equeality and justice like.....Perhaps the norm you shouldent have sex with your mom, Who the hell can insert that sort of authorty unto human beings?

Please post your opinions.

[Logical seal]

Der, I mean sentient being :o

[Sam_b]

I'm sick of all this *multi-cultural* crap

I'm sorry, but what?

[Logical seal]

Well sam, You know the whole................Der whats the de....I know its there somewhere,


Yeah yeah, You know haveing a nationalistic african next to a nationalistic arab, Yeah that stuff.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm sorry, but what?

You know when British Imperialists came to India they were very impressed with the spiritual traditions of India. They lauded the commitment to unearthly values and thought that materialistic Britain could learn from it. The Indians they feared were the young ones who didn't give a shit about that, who wanted to live in a modern world.
All existing cultures are the product of class society. Taste is a positioning mechanism in cultural hierarchy. Destroy all existing cultures.

[Sinister Intents]

Ummm I'll get back to this snd submit a response

[Yuppie Grinder]

norm you shouldent have sex with your mom,.

Sorry you shouldn't be posting images here and nor should they be ridiculous in size - Sam_b

[Logical seal]

Hey some people like doing that sort of stuff ok.

[Sabot Cat]

I'm annoyed at the sentiment that we should gloss over cultural differences in favor of a sterile monoculture. We should be united in our diversity, not in ignoring such distinctions exist. Furthermore, the narratives of challenges exclusively faced by people of a certain ethnicity or culture would be marginalized if we gloss over everything in the manner you prescribe.

[Sam_b]

You know when British Imperialists came to India they were very impressed with the spiritual traditions of India. They lauded the commitment to unearthly values and thought that materialistic Britain could learn from it. The Indians they feared were the young ones who didn't give a shit about that, who wanted to live in a modern world.
All existing cultures are the product of class society. Taste is a positioning mechanism in cultural hierarchy. Destroy all existing cultures.

Well the first part of this requires immediate sourcing to actually make any semnence of a point at all. But seeing that culture is the manifestation of a collective identity, that is not necessary based within national or 'ethnic' confines, I'm alluding to OP not actually making that much of either a) an argument or b) sense. To be honest, neither are you either. There is also the worrying trait of poorly-made sentences like these also conveying sympathies for a particular anti-leftist ideology.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Hey some people like doing that sort of stuff ok.

Are you a troll? Sorry if you aren't, but the constant broken English and oedipus stuff is fishy.

[Logical seal]

Kim, No, I'm not a troll, Alright, I'm a actual confirmed trotskyist, Marxist lenist, Marxist, Far left advocate.


Its just I don't give a shit about grammar on forums.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I'm annoyed at the sentiment that we should gloss over cultural differences in favor of a sterile monoculture. We should be united in our diversity, not in ignoring such distinctions exist. Furthermore, the narratives of challenges exclusively faced by people of a certain ethnicity or culture would be marginalized if we gloss over everything in the manner you prescribe.
Yea you're absolutely right. Part of living as an equal to other people is learning to respect people not in spite of the differences, but out of understanding for them. The whole Acceptance not Tolerance thing rings true to me. I just also buy a lot of what Bordiga has to say about culture.

[Logical seal]

There is also the worrying trait of poorly-made sentences like these also conveying sympathies for a particular anti-leftist ideology.

Bad grammar, does not equel right wing.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Kim, No, I'm not a troll, Alright, I'm a actual confirmed trotskyist, Marxist lenist, Marxist, Far left advocate.


Its just I don't give a shit about grammar on forums.

You said some stuff about how there shouldn't be races and then implied you wanted to commit incest, if you aren't a troll, you should consider a career as one.

[Per Levy]

Kim, No, I'm not a troll, Alright, I'm a actual confirmed trotskyist, Marxist lenist, Marxist, Far left advocate.

you cant actually be a trot and a stalinist(marxist-leninist) at the same time. well you probally can but its getting really fishy theorywise.


You said some stuff about how there shouldn't be races and then implied you wanted to commit incest, if you aren't a troll, you should consider a career as one.

no one beats revleft_by_birth and tir1944 when it comes to trolls.

[Logical seal]

Wow wow, I never said I wanted to commit incest, Just said we should cut down cultural norms....Like women should stay in the house.

Yeah thats the kind of crap culture creacts.

[Logical seal]

no no no, Not the stuff creacted by josepth stalin, That guy was a bullshiter, I guess I got some info on classifcation wrong, Thanks for clearing that out friend.

[Sam_b]

Can we please can one-liners and off-topic posts please? Though I am starting to feel there is not going to be any content in this thread and it should just be put out of its misery.

[Remus Bleys]

Can we please can one-liners and off-topic posts please? Though I am starting to feel there is not going to be any content in this thread and it should just be put out of its misery.

Kill it sam. Kill it dead. Op is clearly confused and no one really wants to help.

[Sam_b]

I've already posted in this thread (with the usual disdain) so I can't actually close it now I'm involved. Other Mods/Admins can be petitioned to however.

I'm willing to give OP a chance at this if he wants to go into detail and generate discussion.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think the OP has an interesting point.

Is multi-culturalism a good idea? As far as i'm aware, multi-culturalism's main product is the 'tolerance' of other cultures by white western culture.

What does it mean to 'tolerate'? Essentially to 'put up with' something. This strikes me as something different from genuine 'respect' and 'equality'.

Multi-culturalism as the particular philosophy of cultural inclusivity has, I would say, largely failed, due to many reasons of course, but one of these is the philosophy itself - it doesn't actually go that much further than this idea of a strained and suspicious tolerance of some other cultures.

I think we can do better.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well first off a mix of cultures, nationalities, and backgrounds is just a feature of capitalist society: how people are all brought together by the need to seek wage labor, how the constant motion of the system displaces people or reorganizes communities, etc.

So the only question is really how should society deals with it and in our society, capitalists tend to try and exploit divisions of any nature among people, shift or control specific populations to create lower tiers in the workforce, etc. for us the question is what does this mean for class movements.

Multiculturalism as a specific sort of answer from above in society for questions around this issue and racism, but I think those specific things should be rejected on the basis of being superficial and ineffective in dealing with social inequalities and divisions.

I think many of us see the key as being multi-ethnic solidarity on a class basis, but I don't think this can come from ignoring or downplaying various cultures and traditions and I think it weakens movements historically. Solidarity has to come about organically through mutual trust in my view. So being able to unite around class differences while also being inclusive and truly representative of all the diversity in the class, I think, is a necessary precondition for a class like the us or French or Mexican working class to begin to really organize itself as a class on a general basis.

The working class is incredibly diverse, it's part of it's nature... A big pool of labor all mashed together and who all must seek employment. A real class movement would need to reflect that fact to be a powerful and united enough to struggle for control of the direction of society.

Cultures are fluid and so who knows what the effects of cultures would be after a whole generation of people had lived without exploitation or inequality or oppression. I'd actually guess that something like lifestyle or affinity-based cultures might actually flourish and multiply... Since people would have more time to develop themselves and do what they wish. I think the main problem with cultural divisions today are actually just because of inter-class competition and exploitation. In a communist society there would be no internal pressure for cultural groups to compete, no oppression of groups, etc and so I can't see how cultures would have negative social consequences. I certainly do not think there is any justification for a revolutionary movement to ban or decree against specific cultures or "all cultures" (which in effect would be banning all deviations from whatever is perceived as the dominant culture), that's dangerous nonsense IMO.

[Rafiq]

I'm annoyed at the sentiment that we should gloss over cultural differences in favor of a sterile monoculture. We should be united in our diversity, not in ignoring such distinctions exist. Furthermore, the narratives of challenges exclusively faced by people of a certain ethnicity or culture would be marginalized if we gloss over everything in the manner you prescribe.

Because to you, the western cultural norms that are devoid of overtly and monstrously reactionary behavior are simply a global standard. You are wrong. Cultural differences to you are simply cosmetic, you appreciate a diverse array of clothing, food, rituals and music yet when it comes to values which are intrinsically western you remain adamantly in favor of a "sterile monoculture". And rightfully so. It is of paramount importance that every communist supports the westernization of the entire Earth, it is only through westernization that Marxism has it's place in all lands. If anything has been demonstrated today, it is that capitalism without western culture, without western 'values' is horrifyingly reactionary.

[Rafiq]

In the midst of the social relationship shared by all peoples to the capitalist mode of production, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, only one culture is visible.

[Remus Bleys]

Because to you, the western cultural norms that are devoid of overtly and monstrously reactionary behavior are simply a global standard. You are wrong. Cultural differences to you are simply cosmetic, you appreciate a diverse array of clothing, food, rituals and music yet when it comes to values which are intrinsically western you remain adamantly in favor of a "sterile monoculture". And rightfully so. It is of paramount importance that every communist supports the westernization of the entire Earth, it is only through westernization that Marxism has it's place in all lands. If anything has been demonstrated today, it is that capitalism without western culture, without western 'values' is horrifyingly reactionary.
The problem i have with this is the westernization of the world. Why do you feel so adamant that no other culture has anything to offer?

[Rafiq]

Yea you're absolutely right. Part of living as an equal to other people is learning to respect people not in spite of the differences, but out of understanding for them. The whole Acceptance not Tolerance thing rings true to me. I just also buy a lot of what Bordiga has to say about culture.

But to what extent? What if these "differences" include an overall normalization of sexism, child abuse, and so on? To what extent do we "tolerate" cultural differences? Our Leftism, our Communism, it is inherently western.

[Rafiq]

The problem i have with this is the westernization of the world. Why do you feel so adamant that no other culture has anything to offer?

I do not, I simply state that only through pre-supposing 'values' which are western can we approach other cultures and appropriate what they have to offer. To add, as Marxists if we recognize culture as a reinforcement of specific social relations, we can come to the conclusion that most, if not all non-western 'cultures' are abjectly reactionary because they did not form as a result in the advancement of a mode of production which lay the foundation to proletarian dictatorship (by creating the proletarian relation itself). You see, we are Communists, we are Marxists, whatever you want, these are our goals.

[Remus Bleys]

I do not, I simply state that only through pre-supposing 'values' which are western can we approach other cultures and appropriate what they have to offer.
No all this talk of "westernization" is sickening to be perfectly honest. Yes of course communism will destroy the old world and replace it all with a new world, a monocultural world, and yes communism has its theoretical roots in the industrial revolution of Germany. Yet "values" and culture have changed since then - certainly not to a huge extent, yet they had. So that much is clear that marxism does not rely on the culture being western to be imported, it simply relied on the way Germany was in order to manifest the way it did.
Communism will rid the world of multiculturalism and create a "new person" but it won't do this through "westernization."
The reason that the "West" has more progressive attitudes is that capitalism is more progressive than Precapitalism - so why would communism, which is more progressive than capitalism, incorporate western values into its framework?

[Sabot Cat]

Because to you, the western cultural norms that are devoid of overtly and monstrously reactionary behavior are simply a global standard. You are wrong. Cultural differences to you are simply cosmetic, you appreciate a diverse array of clothing, food, rituals and music yet when it comes to values which are intrinsically western you remain adamantly in favor of a "sterile monoculture". And rightfully so. It is of paramount importance that every communist supports the westernization of the entire Earth, it is only through westernization that Marxism has it's place in all lands. If anything has been demonstrated today, it is that capitalism without western culture, without western 'values' is horrifyingly reactionary.

I disagree strongly with what I can only see as advocacy for Western imperialism. My values as you put them, my morality on which my political ideology has basis, is not intrinsically western. The maxims of the greatest happiness for the most people is a prevailing theme of the wide majority ethical systems in religions and philosophies the world over. There is the Mettā (loving-kindness) of Buddhism, the Ren (human-heartedness) of Confucianism, the Ai (universal love) of Mohism, the golden rule as elaborated on in countless religions and philosophies as Laozi said ""Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." or this maxim from an Egyptian papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." Karma is a metaphysical reification of utility, and Jainism is more benevolent in theory than any Judeo-Christian faith (which is also Near Eastern, incidentally).

The mutual care and love that families and clans of families have for one another is based in biology, and can be observed in most social animals. The basis of goodness is also materialist, and accordant to observable neurological states. You cannot claim my morality and values to be Western because they were articulated by writers from "the East" far before that of "the West" and predate civilization itself.

[Rafiq]

Can't you see that you're taking for granted, you're pre supposing rhetoric which has it's roots exclusively in the west? Just look at your own post. It's so ironic.

[Remus Bleys]

I disagree strongly with what I can only see as advocacy for Western imperialism. yeah well its rafiq, what are you going to do?


My values as you put them, my morality on which my political ideology has basis, is not intrinsically western.
yes they are

The maxims of the greatest happiness for the most people is a prevailing theme of most systems of ethics in religions the world over.
or rather how you as a westerner idealize them


There is the Mettā (loving-kindness) of Buddhism, the Ren (human-heartedness) of Confucianism, the Ai (universal love) of Mohism,
I can show you how these things are as shitty, if not worse, than Christianity.

the golden rule as elaborated on in countless religions and philosophies as Laozi said ""Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss."
i mean thats cool and its applicable under communism, but what does that mean under capitalism and precapitalism? Doesnt that uphold class society now?
And this golden rule - isnt it philosophically bunk anyway?

or this maxim from an Egyptian papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another." Karma is a metaphysical reification of utility, and Jainism is more benevolent in theory than any Judeo-Christian faith (which is also Near Eastern, incidentally).
Christianity owes more to plato than to abraham


The mutual care and love that families and clans of families have for one another is based in biology, and can be observed in most social animals.
abolish the family

The basis of goodness is also materialist,
think about what you just said

and accordant to observable mental states.
what?

You cannot claim them to be Western because they predate that civilization, and were articulated by writers far from "the East" far before that of "the West".
Giving seemingly communist values to pre-communism can be reactionary.

[Rafiq]

What really sickens me is this talk of love, care and family. Only the master benefits from peace. I don't want universal kindness and love for humanity. I want merciless destruction of everything that stands in the way of the triumph of global communism. I want an eternity of war for a new world, even if it means the death of the entire earth. Even if it means the annihilation of our entire species, should we strive for a new order.

[Remus Bleys]

Can't you see that you're taking for granted, you're pre supposing rhetoric which has it's roots exclusively in the west? Just look at your own post. It's so ironic.Im not sure who you are replying to

[Sabot Cat]

Can't you see that you're taking for granted, you're pre supposing rhetoric which has it's roots exclusively in the west? Just look at your own post. It's so ironic.

I see nothing ironic in stating that the West's only contributions to ethical philosophy were appropriated from the "Near East" or already articulated by Chinese philosophers hundreds of years before, and that morality, love, and goodness aren't intrinsically human things and thus they can't be intrinsically Western things. Most Bonobos are morally superior to humans if we consider them moral agents, and they aren't even aware of Western culture.

[Rafiq]

The advocates of western imperialism were the aristocrats of the East, the conservatives who, along with their colonial masters, feared more than anything the spread of western ideas, the same ones that went along with the beheading of a king in France and the complete annihilation of feudalism.

How many of you called Soviet efforts to westernize the central Asian republics western imperialism? Do you even know what imperialism is? Were the Communists of the middle east, of south Asia, of Indochina, of Africa and just about everywhere on the damned Earth advocates of western imperialism for asserting western values upon their reactionary societies such as women's equality, and so on? Were they wrong to do so? It's these pompous, western liberals that piss me off, with their condescending guilt, their sympathy with all sorts of degenerate bullshit like Buddhism, their romanticization of the most backward cultures that communists spilled oceans of blood fighting against.

[Sabot Cat]

I can show you how these things are as shitty, if not worse, than Christianity.

I'm not saying they're all better, just equivalent at best andthey share many of the same ethical maxims.


i mean thats cool and its applicable under communism, but what does that mean under capitalism and precapitalism? Doesnt that uphold class society now?
And this golden rule - isnt it philosophically bunk anyway?


It's a way of articulating preference utilitarianism before that field was developed.


Christianity owes more to plato than to abraham


In metaphysics.


abolish the family


I will value my family as my family for as long as I live, but that is neither here nor there.


think about what you just said

what?

Happiness and suffering are relatively quantifiable things due to advances in neurology and chemistry.


Giving seemingly communist values to pre-communism can be reactionary.

Primitive Communism as articulated by Marx is compatible with what I'm saying, and not reactionary in the least.

[Sabot Cat]

What really sickens me is this talk of love, care and family. Only the master benefits from peace. I don't want universal kindness and love for humanity. I want merciless destruction of everything that stands in the way of the triumph of global communism. I want an eternity of war for a new world, even if it means the death of the entire earth. Even if it means the annihilation of our entire species, should we strive for a new order.

Who would enjoy that new order? The radioactive ash? Or the cancer stricken animals and the corpses strewn about in the streets? It's as though you want communism and war for absolutely no reason other than they sound appealing to you! How can you claim to fight for the proletariat when your words are dripping with excitement when you describe their slaughter in the battlefield?

[Rafiq]

I see nothing ironic in stating that the West's only contributions to ethical philosophy were appropriated from the "Near East" or already articulated by Chinese philosophers hundreds of years before, and that morality, love, and goodness aren't intrinsically human things and thus they can't be intrinsically Western things. Most Bonobos are morally superior to humans if we consider them moral agents, and they aren't even aware of Western culture.

I despise your morals, or I don't care for them. I don't care for your pathetic glorification of altruism, it has absolutely no intellectual or political relevance. I am not claiming the west is morally superior because the very notion of superior morals is ridiculous, and assumes morals exist objectively. Our aim is proletarian dictatorship and world domination, our aim is a new world, and the destruction of everything that stands in our way.

[Rafiq]

Im not sure who you are replying to

You.

[Remus Bleys]

I'm not saying they're all better, just equivalent at best andthey share many of the same ethical maxims.
Well we both know thats not true.



It's a way of articulating preference utilitarianism before that field was developed.quit using these words. it comes off as a way to hide your bourgeois philosophy




In metaphysics.
aquinas owes a whole lot to plato. protestantism is also definitely a western thing



I will value my family as my family for as long as I love, but that is neither here nor there.
irrelevant



Primitive Communism as articulated by Marx is compatible with what I'm saying, and not reactionary in the least.
Primitive Communism is very reactionary

[Remus Bleys]

You.
Well i am honestly interested in having this conversation with you so I would like something more than "oh look you're stupid" or whatever as a reply.

[Sabot Cat]

Well we both know thats not true.

It is true. There's a lot convergence, again, because we're the same species and have the same biological background for what we find moral.


quit using these words. it comes off as a way to hide your bourgeois philosophy


My ethical philosophy is the basis and justification for communism. I have no idea how it is bourgeois other than origin, possibly.


aquinas owes a whole lot to plato. protestantism is also definitely a western thing


Yes, almost exclusively in metaphysics. The ethics of Christianity are derived from Talmud and the Torah more than they are from Plato.


Primitive Communism is very reactionary

It would at least be backwards-looking if I were advocating for Primitive Communism to be implemented in our present society. That's not my intention.

[Remus Bleys]

It is true. There's a lot convergence, again, because we're the same species and have the same biological background for what we find moral. or similar class societies. whatever




My ethical philosophy is the basis and justification for communism. I have no idea how it is bourgeois other than origin, possibly.
How much marx have you read?




Yes, almost exclusively in metaphysics. The ethics of Christianity are derived from Talmud and the Torah more than they are from Plato.
and thats a pretty big deal. the ethics of chirstianity though - like eating pig?


It would at least be backwards-looking if I were advocating for Primitive Communism to be implemented in our present society. That's not my intention.
thats what it looked like

[Sabot Cat]

or similar class societies. whatever

Either way, they're similar.



How much marx have you read?


I've read as much Marx as I can, but I'm not intimately familiar with his works as I am with some other philosophers or theorists.


and thats a pretty big deal. the ethics of chirstianity though - like eating pig?


No, their ethics are better represented by the maxims labelled by Jesus of Nazareth as the "greatest commandments" (loving one's neighbor as one's self, and loving a flawed metaphysical concept).



thats what it looked like

I am an advocate for communism today, and working with the material conditions that face us presently. I affirm that the past can be instructive, but it isn't a blueprint.

[Remus Bleys]

I've read as much Marx as I can, but I'm not intimately familiar with his works as I am with some other philosophers or theorists. Which philosophers?




No, their ethics are better represented by the maxims labelled by Jesus of Nazareth as the "greatest commandments" (loving one's neighbor as one's self, and loving a flawed metaphysical concept).
And the better question is why did it take off so well in Europe and not Arabia?

[Sabot Cat]

Which philosophers?

As far as "professional" philosophers go that aren't directly related to communism, socialism and revolutionary leftism as a whole, I'm rather familiar with the works of John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer, Sam Harris, John Dewey, C.S. Pierce, and the like. Mostly white males, liberals and bourgeois, but I don't adhere dogmatically to any theorist in developing my philosophy.


And the better question is why did it take off so well in Europe and not Arabia?

What do you mean by that?

[Remus Bleys]

As far as "professional" philosophers go that aren't directly related to communism, socialism and revolutionary leftism as a whole, I'm rather familiar with the works of John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer, Sam Harris, John Dewey, C.S. Pierce, and the like. Mostly white males, liberals and bourgeois, but I don't adhere dogmatically to any theorist in developing my philosophy.

these are all liberals

What do you mean by that?
its was about christianity. why did christianity spread in europe but not in the near east?

[Sabot Cat]

these are all liberals

Yes. Which is why I said these philosophers were liberals and I was selecting a roster of thinkers that weren't directly related to communism, socialism and revolutionary leftism that I was familiar with.


its was about christianity. why did christianity spread in europe but not in the near east?

Well, it actually did spread to that region before it was displaced by Islam centuries later.

[Remus Bleys]

Yes. Which is why I said these philosophers were liberals and I was selecting a roster of thinkers that weren't directly related to communism, socialism and revolutionary leftism that I was familiar with. So your main inspiration is liberals?




Well, it actually did before it was displaced by Islam centuries later.
Source?

[Sabot Cat]

So your main inspiration is liberals?

Not for my political philosophy, no.





Source?

Due to the presence and unity of the Roman Empire facilitating widespread cultural diffusion, most of the early centers of Christianity were in the Near East, with numerous explicit references to the region coming from the Pauline epistles and the rambling preamble of the Book of Revelations, as well as the letters, buildings and artifacts from this region that confirm a Christian presence in the Near East. Doing a quick Google search on the subject will show the incontrovertible empirical proof and consensus among historians about this (sorry no specific books/sites come to mind). Many prominent Christian theologians such as Clement, Origen, the Cappadocian Fathers, etc. hailed from Near Eastern cities like Antitoch, Alexandria, Gaza, Caeserea and the like.

Here's a map illustrating this:

http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/slides/13xity/mapspreadofxity.jpg

[Remus Bleys]

Not for my political philosophy, no.





wait what.

How can you have moral based philosophy (and how do you have morals anyway?) that differs so dramatically with "political philosophy?'

[Sabot Cat]

wait what.

How can you have moral based philosophy (and how do you have morals anyway?) that differs so dramatically with "political philosophy?'

My morality doesn't differ from my politics; they are one. However, the ethical philosophers I cite aren't always aware or beholden to the implications of their theories, thus enabling me to personally build upon them and develop them to fruition. Again, I am not a dogmatist, and I don't really trust anyone to discern what is true, what is good, etc. for me. I'm not saying that my views came fully-formed with no outside influences, but I have no philosophical authorities to which I'm automatically adherent; their theories must be evident to be acceptable.

[Remus Bleys]

My morality doesn't differ from my politics; they are one. However, the ethical philosophers I cite aren't always aware or beholden to the implications of their theories, thus enabling me to personally build upon them and develop them to fruition. Again, I am not a dogmatist, and I don't really trust anyone to discern what is true, what is good, etc. for me.
so the very base of your thinking is inherently bourgeois is what you are saying.

[Sabot Cat]

so the very base of your thinking is inherently bourgeois is what you are saying.

The very base of almost anyone's thinking is anchored to the historical circumstances they find themselves in, and ours is a capitalist era. You cannot dismiss beliefs on the basis of their origin or their speaker; in so doing you would be falling victim to the 'poisoning the well fallacy'.

That line of argumentation is fallacious because the criterion for a belief's validity must be nothing but its correspondence to reality.

[Remus Bleys]

The very base of almost anyone's thinking is anchored to the historical circumstances they find themselves in, and ours is a capitalist era. You cannot dismiss beliefs on the basis of their origin or their speaker; in so doing you would be falling victim to the 'poisoning the well fallacy'.

That line of argumentation is fallacious because the criterion for a belief's validity must be nothing but its correspondence to reality.
No, but these people are explicitly pro-capitalism.

[Sabot Cat]

No, but these people are explicitly pro-capitalism.

I wouldn't say all, but even if they were exclusively pro-capitalist that doesn't mean they can't succinctly or eloquently describe epistemological or ethical principles. Anyone can say what is true and it would still be true, because the truth of a fact doesn't change no matter whose mouth its coming out of or whose pen its flowing from.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Can't you see that you're taking for granted, you're pre supposing rhetoric which has it's roots exclusively in the west? Just look at your own post. It's so ironic.


I despise your morals, or I don't care for them. I don't care for your pathetic glorification of altruism, it has absolutely no intellectual or political relevance. I am not claiming the west is morally superior because the very notion of superior morals is ridiculous, and assumes morals exist objectively. Our aim is proletarian dictatorship and world domination, our aim is a new world, and the destruction of everything that stands in our way.


What really sickens me is this talk of love, care and family. Only the master benefits from peace. I don't want universal kindness and love for humanity. I want merciless destruction of everything that stands in the way of the triumph of global communism. I want an eternity of war for a new world, even if it means the death of the entire earth. Even if it means the annihilation of our entire species, should we strive for a new order.

What I find ironic is the moralism of your own position. Granted, it is a dark, destructive, cynical and misanthropic kind of moralism, but it is moralism nonetheless.

First off, if you were really amoral, you wouldn't find someone else's morality sickening. Second off, you need some kind of teleological ideal that transcends myself to fight for Communism to the death - why would someone die for a Communist revolution lest they valued something else more than themselves?


The advocates of western imperialism were the aristocrats of the East, the conservatives who, along with their colonial masters, feared more than anything the spread of western ideas, the same ones that went along with the beheading of a king in France and the complete annihilation of feudalism.


To say that modernity is a fundamentally, quintessentially, uniquely Western idea is itself a form of idealism, as well as a form of orientalism. If the right conditions arose in a nonwestern society, the same kinds of social and economic convulsions would have happened.

If being Western is all about being modern, then were the French Aristocrats "Orientals" for being opposed to the overthrow of feudalism? Do you think that the values of Aristocrats in places like South Asia were really representative of the totality of thought in that part of the world? It was Imperialism that actually entrenched the forces of reaction in these societies.


How many of you called Soviet efforts to westernize the central Asian republics western imperialism? Do you even know what imperialism is? Were the Communists of the middle east, of south Asia, of Indochina, of Africa and just about everywhere on the damned Earth advocates of western imperialism for asserting western values upon their reactionary societies such as women's equality, and so on? Were they wrong to do so? It's these pompous, western liberals that piss me off, with their condescending guilt, their sympathy with all sorts of degenerate bullshit like Buddhism, their romanticization of the most backward cultures that communists spilled oceans of blood fighting against.

Racism and universalized, legal discrimination against homosexuals were also Western imports. As was the right for the State to deprive lower classes of their communal control over resources.

The Soviets weren't modernizing because they were bringing "Western values" but because they were simply providing political agency to women, etc (also again talking about "Western values" is a form of moralism). There's nothing intrisically "Western" about that. "Western" society after all was incredibly patriarchal.


these are all liberals



No, but these people are explicitly pro-capitalism.

Thats true but granted, Marx was happy use the thought of bourgeois liberals. As long as one is aware of how bourgeois assumptions shape their thought, it's not exactly dangerous to refer to them.



its was about christianity. why did christianity spread in europe but not in the near east?

As for Christianity - Egypt and Syria was mostly Christian, and there were many Christians who lived in the Arabian peninsula as well. Muhammad knew some Nestorian Christians tor example.


Primitive Communism is very reactionary

Is "primitive communism" really more reactionary than our current bourgeois society though? Many Native American tribes for instance participated in reactionary tribal warfare against one another, but it really wasn't any worse than the kind of warfare fought between the Germans and the French. Yet man tribes were also were much more tolerant of homosexuals/transgender people. It wasn't until American Christians bringing their wonderful "modernity" that you saw the kind of modern homophobia.

Primitive communist societies also often lack the kind of reactionary atomic family structure of Western liberal society too.

I don't think we should see "primitive communism" as an example for a future society, but I don't think they can be held as a bunch of anachronistic stone age savages who hold backwards values.

[Remus Bleys]

Thats true but granted, Marx was happy use the thought of bourgeois liberals. As long as one is aware of how bourgeois assumptions shape their thought, it's not exactly dangerous to refer to them. But I don't really see the use in Bourgeois philosophy after marx had taken what use it had.


Is "primitive communism" really more reactionary than our current bourgeois society though? Many Native American tribes for instance participated in reactionary tribal warfare against one another, but it really wasn't any worse than the kind of warfare fought between the Germans and the French. Yet man tribes were also were much more tolerant of homosexuals/transgender people. It wasn't until American Christians bringing their wonderful "modernity" that you saw the kind of modern homophobia.

Primitive communist societies also often lack the kind of reactionary atomic family structure of Western liberal society too.

I don't think we should see "primitive communism" as an example for a future society, but I don't think they can be held as a bunch of anachronistic stone age savages who hold backwards values.
Well yes. I happen to like penicillin.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I'm sick of all this *multi-cultural* crap :glare:



It's hilarious that you should use this as an argument against racism because this is the exact same stance the Nazis took.

But I do agree on not collecting cultural groups in filthy Blumenbachian dated terms like "White, Black, Asian, Hispanic", because it tells you nothing about someones cultural background. I mean fucking hell, 'Asian'!? There are four billion fucking people in Asia, with hundreds of distinct cultures that go back millennia. WHO THE FUCK IN ASIA ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Same goes for 'Hispanic' and 'Black'. As much as Asia is a culturally diverse place, it is to Africa and Meso/South America what a local food stall is to god-damn wall-mart. Completely ridiculous and racist blanket term for anyone 'from Africa' or anyone 'below Murica' - they should just go with 'foreigner' because that's all the filthy words really amount to.

Cultural norms, To, Are but obsticles to equeality and justice like.....Perhaps the norm you shouldent have sex with your mom, Who the hell can insert that sort of authorty unto human beings?

Please post your opinions.[/QUOTE]

This is a ridiculous generalisation. Criticising cultural norms does not equate to people having sex with their family members or murder being okay. That's stupid.

[Sabot Cat]

But I don't really see the use in Bourgeois philosophy after marx had taken what use it had.

Philosophy produced and discussed by the bourgeois didn't end with the death of Marx, nor did Marx in his life comprehensively address every single possible issue in philosophy that other authors have expounded upon in greater detail. Thus there is still possible utility in the intellectual contributions of those who may be capitalist exploiters or supporters thereof.


Well yes. I happen to like penicillin.

This is kind of a non-sequitur.

[Czy]

Red Rose, utilitarianism is a bourgeois philosophy. There's no two ways about it. It is the compass of classical liberalism and most pro-capitalist ideologies. It is an axiomatic position and its purpose it claims to defend is a chimera: that suffering and happiness can be quantified, compared and used as a guiding principle.

How can this be the basis of your politics?

[Sabot Cat]

Red Rose, utilitarianism is a bourgeois philosophy. There's no two ways about it. It is the compass of classical liberalism and most pro-capitalist ideologies. It is an axiomatic position and its purpose it claims to defend is a chimera: that suffering and happiness can be quantified, compared and used as a guiding principle.

How can this be the basis of your politics?

I don't believe that consequentialist, moral realist theories embodied by the Utilitarian school of thought presume that we can have complete certainty in any appraisal of the likely suffering and happiness produced as a consequence of one's actions, as with more easily quantifiable values like mass or density. Although Jeremy Bentham certainly believed so, declaring that he could probably make some sort of thermometer for morality or the like, he was being naive and I don't concur with him. I hold nothing more than the principle that the happiness and suffering produced as a consequence of an action are the basis of the morality of them, and one can apply an adequate yet fallible heuristic in appraising one's actions based on these with a scientifically informed epistemology and materialist metaphysics.

Furthermore, anyone who believes that capitalism produces the greatest amount of happiness for the most people, including the philosophers who first developed Utilitarian theory in its modern form, has an inadequate understanding of the material consequences of bourgeois exploitation of the proletariat. Therefore, I find it evident that self-consistent utilitarianism cannot be bourgeois; that is, unless you want to argue that people would suffer more on average under a socialist mode of production in comparison to a capitalist one.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But I don't really see the use in Bourgeois philosophy after marx had taken what use it had.


There are plenty of bourgeois philosophers who have interesting things to say. While I think bourgeois political science and ethics is more likely to have implicit assumptions from their class status within the analysis than other fields of study, it's not necessarily the case that these assumptions wholly discredit their work. There are plenty of bourgeois economists, sociologists and social scientists but their work is still useful. Of course, though, we must be critical of bourgeois assumptions which underpin their thoughts.



Well yes. I happen to like penicillin.Yeah I don't think modernity needs to be a zero sum game. That is why naive hippies who talk about abandoning Western medicine for acupuncture and yoga are being silly. That said, it's also indisputable that practices like Yoga can be quite healthy for the body and mind. In my mind, the point of rebuilding a new "universal" culture isn't to just impose westernization on everyone but to allow people to bring what is useful to the table from their own culture, and take what is useful from others.



This is a ridiculous generalisation. Criticising cultural norms does not equate to people having sex with their family members or murder being okay. That's stupid.

Technically, rules against murder and incest are cultural norms. I think its fair to criticize cultural/moral norms but usually people still assert some kind of normativity, no matter how critical they become.


Red Rose, utilitarianism is a bourgeois philosophy. There's no two ways about it. It is the compass of classical liberalism and most pro-capitalist ideologies. It is an axiomatic position and its purpose it claims to defend is a chimera: that suffering and happiness can be quantified, compared and used as a guiding principle.

How can this be the basis of your politics?

There are good Marxist critiques of utilitarianism - but I think it's fair to say that like liberalism, while utilitarianism as envisioned usually presupposes a Capitalist society it sort of implies the negation of Capitalism as a possibility too, as if capitalism cannot fulfill the universal utility, it should be scrapped. Capitalism is no longer able to fulfill utilitarian rules against harm because modern Capitalism is no longer improving the living standards of most people. See Singer's vain attempts to convince Capitalists to pay money to flood victims in Bangladesh - the ends of utilitarianism are no longer achievable under Capitalism.

I think deontology has more of a problem with maintaining bourgeois norms.

[Sabot Cat]

There are good Marxist critiques of utilitarianism - but I think it's fair to say that like liberalism, while utilitarianism as envisioned usually presupposes a Capitalist society it sort of implies the negation of Capitalism as a possibility too, as if capitalism cannot fulfill the universal utility, it should be scrapped. Capitalism is no longer able to fulfill utilitarian rules against harm because modern Capitalism is no longer improving the living standards of most people. See Singer's vain attempts to convince Capitalists to pay money to flood victims in Bangladesh - the ends of utilitarianism are no longer achievable under Capitalism.

I think that even if we had welfare capitalism, where the economy operated with a "floor" of minimum benefits necessary for living life allocated by governments, it would produce less utility than a socialist system. This is because people would have a deficit of utility every time they paid more than the use-value and labor-value for a product, or were compensated less than their suffering would entitle them, by which I mean the amount of compensation necessary for their labor to not be a net negative in happiness expended and gained for themselves. This is not to mention how there appears to be a ceiling of happiness corresponding to differences in income at around $75,000/year (http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2019628,00.html). Hence the attendant societal ills of capital hoarding, such as the deprivation of resources that prevent immunization of curable disease and providing food for those who are starving and the like, helps to make massive income inequality ethically untenable. I would also go onto to say how a socialist economy would provide for the needs of a community much more adequately than a market, that competition is less beneficial than cooperation as evidenced by game theory (e.g. the Prisoner's dilemma), and that any hierarchical system or mode of production without proletarian control is harmful to most of the people within that society because of how the privileged will often abuse their power to subjugate those who lack their freedom.

To be honest, Marx's criticisms of utilitarianism weren't "this is wrong and bourgeois!" as much as they were the tenor of "no shit Sherlock".

[Remus Bleys]

The communist mode of production abolishes the proletariat.

Anyway back on subject. Who doesn't think communism will be monocultural? And why?

[blake 3:17]

The communist mode of production abolishes the proletariat.

Anyway back on subject. Who doesn't think communism will be monocultural? And why?

The idea of communism being monocultural is totally repugnant. That's the fascist aesthetic.

If you want everyone to be the same, there's a Final Solution.

[Remus Bleys]

Did you just fucking flame me? I say I think communism will lead to a monocultural world you call me a nazi. Are you fucking stupid or something?

[blake 3:17]

Maybe I'm a retarded schizo faggot pussy whore?

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

[Tim Cornelis]

I found this thread to be quite comedic for some reason. I especially enjoyed the usual proto-nihilistic poetry by Rafiq.

Anyway, multiculturalism is usually associated with cultural relativism, "you can't tell that muslim to not hit his wife, it's his culture."

Communism will indeed be monocultural, egalitarian and libertarian social norms will be birthed by it -- the metamonocultural framework. Within, of course, we will find variety of clothing, language, architecture, cuisine, and some minor customs (two or three kisses on the cheeks, etc.) and subcultures.



Is "primitive communism" really more reactionary than our current bourgeois society though? Many Native American tribes for instance participated in reactionary tribal warfare against one another, but it really wasn't any worse than the kind of warfare fought between the Germans and the French. Yet man tribes were also were much more tolerant of homosexuals/transgender people. It wasn't until American Christians bringing their wonderful "modernity" that you saw the kind of modern homophobia.

Primitive communist societies also often lack the kind of reactionary atomic family structure of Western liberal society too.

I don't think we should see "primitive communism" as an example for a future society, but I don't think they can be held as a bunch of anachronistic stone age savages who hold backwards values.

Amerindians were not primitive communism, they were in the stage of Chiefdom, a proto-state with limited social stratification.


It's hilarious that you should use this as an argument against racism because this is the exact same stance the Nazis took.

Association fallacy. Far-left and far-right both oppose Zionism, oh my.

[Remus Bleys]

Maybe I'm a retarded schizo faggot pussy whore?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Architecture_of_Doom
I am failing to see how this is relevant. If you want to make an argument make an argument, but if you are going to call me a nazi, AND YES I AM TAKING THAT AS A PERSONAL ATTACK, then I am going to call for you to get de modded.


This is rather unbecoming.

[Logical seal]

This is a ridiculous generalisation. Criticising cultural norms does not equate to people having sex with their family members or murder being okay. That's stupid.

I never said murder was ok, But some people like to do the thingy to there family members, And there insulted and sometimes murderd for it, We need to take a step aginst disicrimination of any type.

[blake 3:17]

Amerindians were not primitive communism, they were in the stage of Chiefdom, a proto-state with limited social stratification.


This essentially buys into the Lockean bullshit I've been fighting tooth & nail for a whole of my political life. Fuck this shit. Yeah, native peoples in the Americas weren't perfect. Big fuckin deal. Doesn't mean they need to be schooled over & fucking over & over again by fucking white assholes destroying languages and land & telling them they don;t they're doing. Just like Amerikka and England teaching Arabs to speak English so They Don't Get Shot & Fuck You

[blake 3:17]

You even understand the meaning of January 1, 1994?

Or why the the 20th anniversary matters?

[Rurkel]

Amerindians were not primitive communism, they were in the stage of Chiefdom, a proto-state with limited social stratification. "Amerindians" is definitely too broad/general a category in this sentence. The continent contained societies of varying social structures/development.

[Remus Bleys]

You even understand the meaning of January 1, 1994?

Or why the the 20th anniversary matters?

Why the fuck does the zapasitas matter itt? Youre not actually making an argument.

I've had enough bullshit from you. I seriously want to file a complaint.

[Remus Bleys]

This essentially buys into the Lockean bullshit I've been fighting tooth & nail for a whole of my political life. Fuck this shit. Yeah, native peoples in the Americas weren't perfect. Big fuckin deal. Doesn't mean they need to be schooled over & fucking over & over again by fucking white assholes destroying languages and land & telling them they don;t they're doing. Just like Amerikka and England teaching Arabs to speak English so They Don't Get Shot & Fuck You

Lol wut
Are you drunk or something?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Fascists wanted an existing culture imposed as a universal culture because it's superior according to the logic of that culture. I highly doubt that's what Rhemus meant. I don't think there's a need to make this debate personal

Also it should be noted that cultural imposition predated fascism, however much the fascists also used that line of discourse. Being a cultural universalist isn't a sufficient condition for being a fascist.



Anyway back on subject. Who doesn't think communism will be monocultural? And why?

It depends on how the question is framed, or what we mean by the term "monocultural"? What is the real division between two distinct cultures? Do we have one diverse culture, or many cultures which have no sharp dividing lines? Personally, I think it would have cultural diversity but without the kind of stark, socially constructed barriers that divide "distinct" cultures.



Amerindians were not primitive communism, they were in the stage of Chiefdom, a proto-state with limited social stratification.


As Rurkel said, there was diversity amongst tribes. Chiefs had varying levels of power, and often were little more than military leaders. And as Blake said, the peasants in Chiapas who support the EZLN have a sort of economic communalism, whatever critiques we might have of them as an organization. They are a peasant movement, they are not really Marxists, but they also do represent a traditional mode of production which was communal in nature.

[Remus Bleys]

I believe the situation under communism would be some sort of diverse culture that would offer a wide range of things, but simultaneously I think it would be as if someone were transferred from one locality, commune whatever into another (visiting moving there etc) it would be more or less the same.

[blake 3:17]

Why the fuck does the zapasitas matter itt? Youre not actually making an argument.

It's not always an argument -- it's called discussion. We throw around ideas, share ideas and insights and resources. The Zapatista rebellion was only one part of it.

We'd love it if the Zapatistas were the big deal, but it was really the enforcement of NAFTA, a much shittier uglier thing. And one that makes us all more alike -- in a bad way. The Zapatista movement and the alter globalization movement were ones that have tried to change that. Maybe we can.

Were you born after it?

[Sabot Cat]

The communist mode of production abolishes the proletariat.

It's a good thing I said socialist mode of production then~


Anyway back on subject. Who doesn't think communism will be monocultural? And why?

I believe the situation under communism would be some sort of diverse culture that would offer a wide range of things, but simultaneously I think it would be as if someone were transferred from one locality, commune whatever into another (visiting moving there etc) it would be more or less the same.

Why? Capitalist nations have distinct cultures that have basis not only in the way their resources are allocated and their class hierarchies, but also in their unique positions in history as well as their geography. I see no reason why a communist world would be monocultural. If anything, there would be more cultural diversity without all of the imperialism, inequalities and monopolies.

[Remus Bleys]

Socialist mode of production = communist mode of production

Capitalism has started the unification of the world. Communism will finish the job.

[Sabot Cat]

Socialist mode of production = communist mode of production

The socialist mode of production is when the "dictatorship of the proletariat" marshals transition from a capitalist to a communist society in Marxist theory. During such a time, the proletariat obviously still exist.

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

-Critique of the Gotha Program

[Remus Bleys]

I was born in 1996 but its not like that matters.

The discussion is about communism being monolithic so yeah the zapasitas are off topic because last time I checked were in this system called capitalism.

[Remus Bleys]

The socialist mode of production is when the "dictatorship of the proletariat" marshals transition from a capitalist to a communist society in Marxist theory. During such a time, the proletariat still exist.

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

-Critique of the Gotha Program

This is so stalinist its laughable. This quote actually proves my point but this is ot

[Sabot Cat]

This is so stalinist its laughable. This quote actually proves my point but this is ot

No, it is Marxist, as I am quoting Marx, and the distinction between a socialist mode of production and a communist mode of production is one that exists in his theory during the revolutionary period. I believe you are wrong in saying that they are the same, or that a socialist mode of production is necessarily classless. How can there be a dictatorship of the proletariat if there is no proletariat?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No, it is Marxist, as I am quoting Marx, and the distinction between a socialist mode of production and a communist mode of production is one that exists in his theory during the revolutionary period. I believe you are wrong in saying that they are the same, or that a socialist mode of production is necessarily classless. How can there be a dictatorship of the proletariat if there is no proletariat?

If I remember correctly the association between dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism is actually something Marx didn't make. He used socialism and communism somewhat interchangeably.

[Remus Bleys]

Yeah the dotp is capitalist. Only stalinists say dotp is socialism.

[Diirez]

I don't think you can get rid of culture, ever.
Culture is something that many groups of people enjoy and love. Sociologically, it makes the world more diverse and interesting. There's nothing wrong with culture, there is something wrong with the prejudice and discrimination that society teaches kids. You're not born a racist, or prejudice, someone has to teach you that.

[Sabot Cat]

I think it might be more of a Leninist thing upon further research, but again: there would still be a proletariat within his theory of that mode of production because Marx clearly refers to one being there in a way akin to how I did.

[blake 3:17]

I was born in 1996 but its not like that matters.

The discussion is about communism being monolithic so yeah the zapasitas are off topic because last time I checked were in this system called capitalism.

I don't like to go this route, but to head off ugly shit --


I'll cut you some slack. Cut me some. I fought for gay marriage before you were born, been on by cops & Nazis. OK? I could've lost my housing over it, never mind job. I was active in Students Against NAFTA in high school.

And I and my peeps did help shut down the Wall Street Stock Exchange in 96 in a solidarity action for Mumia Abu Jamal. Only reason our asses weren't smashed to bits were because of sympathetic Christians. Anarchist punx + Black nationalists v the state and big $$$$ = our loss, Mix in some nice folks & families

You want a monocultural communism? Good fucking luck! Ain't happening anayways.

So peace up.

[blake 3:17]

Socialist mode of production = communist mode of production

Capitalism has started the unification of the world. Communism will finish the job.

But there is a question -- is that desirable?

[Remus Bleys]

Again you twit. This constitutes flaming first you have the audacity to call me a nazi (fuck you so much, considering especially I had family die in the holocaust) then you pull this "I AM OLDER THAN YOU SO I KNOW BETTER" bullshit and you lay out some irrelevant details aboout your life.

What thread do I go to to make a complaint?

[Remus Bleys]

But there is a question -- is that desirable?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be?

[Sabot Cat]

Again you twit. This constitutes flaming first you have the audacity to call me a nazi (fuck you so much, considering especially I had family die in the holocaust) then you pull this "I AM OLDER THAN YOU SO I KNOW BETTER" bullshit and you lay out some irrelevant details aboout your life.

What thread do I go to to make a complaint?

I think you can report a post by clicking the rightmost triangular button with red trim at the top. :)

[blake 3:17]

Remus -- There is a report post thing. You can report me & my posts several times.

[Radio Spartacus]

What is the distinction between socialism and communism? I've only ever heard really vague theoretically empty answers, I really want a detailed explanation on what a "socialist mode of production" fundamentally different from the communist mode of production could possibly entail.

More on topic though: what's with the cases of irrelevant genocide-baiting going on here? Reading the thread it is pretty clear no one is endorsing what happened to the native people of America or what occurred in the holocaust...

[blake 3:17]

Tom Flanagan is the architect of right wing Canadian politics -- the schemer behind Reform, the Alliance and the Conservative Party. He's had some recent notoriety for keeping to his libertarian views.

His biggest public intellectual project has been the attack on native peoples as distinct peoples. His first routes were simply discrediting them through fairly crude racist means, then as non - civilized more sophisticatedly, and then getting parts of the native leadership on board through $$$$ that wouldn't go far, but you know.... Here's a review of the last book http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2010/04/opportunity-or-temptation/

[Brutus]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is worker managed capitalism, where production for value is transformed into production for need. Socialism is the abolition of the law of value, so I doubt the DotP is socialism, RR.

[Tim Cornelis]

This essentially buys into the Lockean bullshit I've been fighting tooth & nail for a whole of my political life. Fuck this shit. Yeah, native peoples in the Americas weren't perfect. Big fuckin deal. Doesn't mean they need to be schooled over & fucking over & over again by fucking white assholes destroying languages and land & telling them they don;t they're doing. Just like Amerikka and England teaching Arabs to speak English so They Don't Get Shot & Fuck You

Are you an idiot or something? I merely pointed out, without value judgement of any kind, that Amerindians in the United States (as others pointed out, Amerindians is too broad, but generally the Amerindians waging warfare and such in North America, First Nations or Native Americans) were chiefdoms, not primitive communism. Then you lash out for no reason, and I mean no reason. This is not a discussion of culture, it's a pointing out that the social development you ascribed to native Americans is wrong. Get your head out of the gutter.


I don't like to go this route, but to head off ugly shit --


I'll cut you some slack. Cut me some. I fought for gay marriage before you were born, been on by cops & Nazis. OK? I could've lost my housing over it, never mind job. I was active in Students Against NAFTA in high school.

And I and my peeps did help shut down the Wall Street Stock Exchange in 96 in a solidarity action for Mumia Abu Jamal. Only reason our asses weren't smashed to bits were because of sympathetic Christians. Anarchist punx + Black nationalists v the state and big $$$$ = our loss, Mix in some nice folks & families

You want a monocultural communism? Good fucking luck! Ain't happening anayways.

So peace up.

An appeal to emotion is no substitute for an argument. You list your activities, which are completely irrelevant to what's being discussed.

What it seems like, to me, is that you don't know what monoculturalism means and that, or how it is used here, and that you get your knicks in a bunch for thinking we are suggesting that everyone will wear sterile clothing live in identical housing units with only one form of artistic expression allowed. That's not monoculturalism, well it is, but not how we envision communism.

Japan is monocultural, yet diverse, with four written alphabets, different ethnicities, various subcultures, and undoubtedly innumerable artistic expressions.

Communism will be monocultural, with one primary reason being that socialisation of children occurs through collective child rearing. Communism will allow for various subcultures, expressions of individual identity, various living arrangements -- collectives, polygamy, communal, individual -- and allow individuals to express themselves through whatever art form they wish, no matter how shitty, speak the languages they wish, clothe themselves as they please, enjoy the cuisines they want. I imagine children be raised bi- or multilingual. This is not contrary to the concept of monoculture.

As I said, there is a metamonocultural framework of egalitarian and libertarian values. Within there are varieties of lifestyles, sure, and these will be diverse, but hardly 'multicultural'.

[Sabot Cat]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is worker managed capitalism, where production for value is transformed into production for need. Socialism is the abolition of the law of value, so I doubt the DotP is socialism, RR.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phase towards communism, according to Marx.

"Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

Lenin then later labeled the transitional phase as "socialist" and the final phase as "communist", which is now a generally accepted distinction in some circles. Nonetheless, the revolutionary left has almost as many schisms and factions as Christianity, so there will always be dispute as to the "correct" definition of any particular word.

I believe that in any case Remus was attempting to ignore the rest of my post(s) through being pedantic in regards to Marxist phraseology, and then preemptively shut down argument before it could occur by saying the discussion was off-topic.

[Remus Bleys]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phase towards communism, according to Marx.

"Long before me, bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this struggle between the classes, as had bourgeois economists their economic anatomy. My own contribution was (1) to show that the existence of classes is merely bound up with certain historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; [and] (3) that this dictatorship, itself, constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

Lenin then later labeled the transitional phase as "socialist" and the final phase as "communist", which is now a generally accepted distinction in some circles. Nonetheless, the revolutionary left has almost as many schisms and factions as Christianity, so there will always be dispute as to the "correct" definition of any particular word.

I believe that in any case Remus was attempting to ignore the rest of my post(s) through being pedantic in regards to Marxist phraseology, and then preemptively shut down argument before it could occur by saying the discussion was off-topic.
This is so stalinist.
lenin called it socialist in the sense that it was a state that was leading to socialism.
and yeah its the only part of your post i care to reply to.
only stalinists and confused anarchists call lower phase communism class based.

[Sabot Cat]

This is so stalinist.

I wasn't aware that Marx was Stalinist, nor did I know labeling things with unfavorable ideologies was a valid form of refutation.


lenin called it socialist in the sense that it was a state that was leading to socialism.


And I meant that the proletariat would have control in a socialist means of production in the sense that they would be of that class until there would be no class, during the revolutionary transitional period.


and yeah its the only part of your post i care to reply to.
only stalinists and confused anarchists call lower phase communism class based.

Again, ad hominem arguments are fallacious and discredited. It's not enough to say something is political heresy to you to prove a certain statement wrong.

[Marshal of the People]

I think different cultures make the world diverse and a better place and should not be destroyed.

Though I do think that having a monoculture would logical but I don't think many people would agree with me, who would create this monoculture? (wouldn't parts of a specific culture gain dominance?), what would happen if other cultures objected to other cultures having more dominance in this new monoculture?

A monoculture would make the society more standardised and everything would be the same, personally I like different cultures and if a communist society is going to have a monoculture it should be made up of every single culture (minus all the religious stuff) to ensure fairness.

[Remus Bleys]

I wasn't aware that Marx was Stalinist, nor did I know labeling things with unfavorable ideologies was a valid form of refutation.
Because Marx advocating this line was a myth forged by stalin and company.
Simply look at the history and this is true. I do not know why a self named "anarchist" is defending stalinist revisionism.


And I meant that the proletariat would have control in a socialist means of production in the sense that they would be of that class until there would be no class, during the revolutionary transitional period.

PRECISELY! The dotp is therefore not socialist.


Again, ad hominem arguments are fallacious and discredited. It's not enough to say something is political heresy to you to prove a certain statement wrong.
When all your arguments that I have read by yours turns into bourgeois logic then i am done arguing.

[Marshal of the People]

PRECISELY! The dotp is therefore not socialist.

Could you please define dotp, thanks.

[Remus Bleys]

Could you please define dotp, thanks.
dictatorship of the proletariat

[Marshal of the People]

dictatorship of the proletariat

Thank you.

[Remus Bleys]

Thank you.
anytime. its an offhand acronym for ease of use.

[Sabot Cat]

When all your arguments that I have read by yours turns into bourgeois logic then i am done arguing.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. What does "bourgeois logic" even mean? I'm guessing it means, "A system of thought supportive of capitalist exploitation of the proletariat." In which case, I'm confused why you think that, because I've expressed on numerous occasions that I'm obviously not on board with the exploitation of the proletariat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What it seems like, to me, is that you don't know what monoculturalism means and that, or how it is used here, and that you get your knicks in a bunch for thinking we are suggesting that everyone will wear sterile clothing live in identical housing units with only one form of artistic expression allowed. That's not monoculturalism, well it is, but not how we envision communism.so folks in this debate are getting so incensed because others here are confusing a term with what it doesn't mean... But then it is often actually the meaning?

I think the frustration in the debate is over confusion of what these terms mean. The only meaning of culture that I'm aware of means lifestyle, custom, traditions etc and generally reflects the situations and ideologies and common sense of the people who hold them. People advocating monoculture say there will be diversity of lifestyles and so on, but that it will be a monoculture; this is different than how right-wingers describe monoculture because they actually mean a monolithic set of values and tastes and lifestyles. So then what do the left monoculture advocates mean by monoculture: no class divisions and communist social relations? Well I want that too, but I don't know how those fundamental changes in social relations will impact culture, as I said before I'd speculate that it would mean a flowering of diverse ways people wanted to live and organize their communities. It's not what I think most would describe as monoculture at all (meta-monoculture is an interesting term) but if that's what people mean: a culture where specific lifestyles and communities are based on mutual interest and so don't matter in a sense, them I guess I agree.

But when people talk about japan as a monoculture to emulate or talk about communism "finishing the westernization or globalization" that capitalism started, I think we undermine a diverse monoculture of mutual power and respect and fall too rhetorically close to the visions of monolithic ruling class dominated cultures promoted by the right.

Capitalism treats culture as something which must be rationalized on the basis of capitalist ideologies at the time: but the effect is molding people and cultures around the needs of capital. This is inherently oppressive and leads to clashes. It would also serve no purpose in a society built around our own needs rather than a class society which needs to bend people to its needs. Any similar attempt by revolutionary societies to liberate people from a culture against their will would require similar brutality which I think is antithetical to the ends if the goal is for people to leave some maybe bad practices or customs behind. This can only really be done either organically or through repression.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think the frustration in the debate is over confusion of what these terms mean. The only meaning of culture that I'm aware of means lifestyle, custom, traditions etc and generally reflects the situations and ideologies and common sense of the people who hold them.

I want to use this to jump in, and I hope this hasn't been covered. I confess, I couldn't bring myself to read all six pages (esp. when a bunch of it seems to be, "But when Karl said communism, he meant . . ."-type biblical scholarship.

Anyway, while I think "lifestyle, custom, traditions, etc." are certainly, and obviously, important aspects of culture, when it comes right down to it we need to look at their relationship to re/production, and the material reproduction of a community. So, like, we could look at, say, a Catholic wedding on a surface level - the ceremony, the clothing, the vows, etc. - and say, "OK, there's culture!", but we'd be missing the point. What we'd really need to look at is patriarchy, the legal structures around marriage, its role in structuring reproduction, the relationship of the family to production more broadly, etc. - it's by digging deeper that we're really going to "get" culture.


People advocating monoculture say there will be diversity of lifestyles and so on, but that it will be a monoculture; this is different than how right-wingers describe monoculture because they actually mean a monolithic set of values and tastes and lifestyles. So then what do the left monoculture advocates mean by monoculture: no class divisions and communist social relations? Well I want that too, but I don't know how those fundamental changes in social relations will impact culture, as I said before I'd speculate that it would mean a flowering of diverse ways people wanted to live and organize their communities. But when people talk about japan as a monoculture to emulate or talk about communism "finishing the westernization or globalization" that capitalism started, I think we undermine a diverse monoculture of mutual power and respect and fall too rhetorically close to the visions of monolithic ruling class dominated cultures promoted by the right.

What's interesting here is that you've hit on a real tension within Marxism, and one I think that is present even going back to Marx himself. The question has to be asked - do we imagine a multiplicity of distinct communisms, or one "total" communism that emerges out of global capitalism at the end of history? I think there's a case to be made that Marx imagined the latter, but that this is a point where it's really necessary to make a break with his thinking. It's this point where Marx's liberal and Hegelian baggage - ultimately, his Euro-chauvenism - has really remained present in too much contemporary Marxist discourse, and with really horrifying consequences.

[Remus Bleys]

I want to use this to jump in, and I hope this hasn't been covered. I confess, I couldn't bring myself to read all six pages (esp. when a bunch of it seems to be, "But when Karl said communism, he meant . . ."-type biblical scholarship.
i usually dont read the whole thread. But its not really like that at all


What we'd really need to look at is patriarchy, the legal structures around marriage, its role in structuring reproduction, the relationship of the family to production more broadly, etc. - it's by digging deeper that we're really going to "get" culture.
I think you have a point.



What's interesting here is that you've hit on a real tension within Marxism, and one I think that is present even going back to Marx himself. The question has to be asked - do we imagine a multiplicity of distinct communisms, or one "total" communism that emerges out of global capitalism at the end of history?
Why wouldnt we have one total communism?

I think there's a case to be made that Marx imagined the latter, but that this is a point where it's really necessary to make a break with his thinking. It's this point where Marx's liberal and Hegelian baggage - ultimately, his Euro-chauvenism - has really remained present in too much contemporary Marxist discourse, and with really horrifying consequences.
What horrifying consquences?
And yes marx was a bit of a euro-centric asshole, but i don't think this is an instance of him being one.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Why wouldnt we have one total communism?

Well, for one, because it's the Christian fairy-tale of global communion re-articulated as liberal Europe's historical mission, and not something that is either possible or desirable. To flesh that out: I don't believe it's possible because I don't think one model of re/production could possibly suit all of the geographical particularities of the planet, linking them together in a way that was premised on free uncoerced sharing. I think communism implies certain practical limitations, if we accept that, for example, people sitting on top of oil reserves won't be be willingly displaced to facilitate the global movement of goods. I don't mean that in a "primitivist" sense, but I do mean that capitalism enables certain "feats" that would be impossible in a society not premised on accumulation on world scale. I don't think it's desirable in the sense that, being impossible, aiming to achieve it necessarily implies undermining the communist content of the project.

I would contrast this with the idea of a multiplicity of communisms - of specific and culturally unique forms of re/production along communist lines.

[Remus Bleys]

Well, for one, because it's the Christian fairy-tale of global communion re-articulated as liberal Europe's historical mission, and not something that is either possible or desirable. To flesh that out: I don't believe it's possible because I don't think one model of re/production could possibly suit all of the geographical particularities of the planet, linking them together in a way that was premised on free uncoerced sharing. I think communism implies certain practical limitations, if we accept that, for example, people sitting on top of oil reserves won't be be willingly displaced to facilitate the global movement of goods. I don't mean that in a "primitivist" sense, but I do mean that capitalism enables certain "feats" that would be impossible in a society not premised on accumulation on world scale. I don't think it's desirable in the sense that, being impossible, aiming to achieve it necessarily implies undermining the communist content of the project.

1. So if a population from town A die without X, and town B is sitting on a lot of X, we allow town A to die because we should not interfere with the location of the people who live in town B?
2. What do you mean by re/production?
edit: im not necessarily taking a position on point 1, i am just throwing that argument out there.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. So if a population from town A die without X, and town B is sitting on a lot of X, we allow town A to die because we should not interfere with the location of the people who live in town B?
2. What do you mean by re/production?
edit: im not necessarily taking a position on point 1, i am just throwing that argument out there.

I mean, I think "1" is something that needs to be grappled with, for sure. That said, I can't think of what "Town A" would need that would necessitate the displacement of "Town B". I mean, I suppose you could argue, for example, that Manitoban grain production is premised on massive fossil fuel inputs, so, you know, there's the real humanitarian basis for US intervention in the Middle East, but, well . . .

As for "2" I use reproduction to emphasize the importance of activity that is "naturalized" as outside of the "productive" process - love (familial and romantic), sex, housekeeping, socializing, hygiene, etc. - all of which are absolutely necessary for the latter, but don't appear as "economic" activity.

[Remus Bleys]

Now that I know what you mean by reproduction I can move on.

Well, for one, because it's the Christian fairy-tale of global communion re-articulated as liberal Europe's historical mission, and not something that is either possible or desirable.-
Which is precisely my disagreement with Rafiq. Its the proletariat, not Europes, "historical mission".

to flesh that out: I don't believe it's possible because I don't think one model of re/production could possibly suit all of the geographical particularities of the planet, linking them together in a way that was premised on free uncoerced sharing.
you said by this you meant love. but a mix of polygamy, monogamy, and communal type relationships will certainly be in communism, as it isn't a one-size fits all relationship. So why wouldn't that be possible under communism?


I would contrast this with the idea of a multiplicity of communisms - of specific and culturally unique forms of re/production along communist lines.
Why is this desirable/more practical?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Are you an idiot or something? I merely pointed out, without value judgement of any kind, that Amerindians in the United States (as others pointed out, Amerindians is too broad, but generally the Amerindians waging warfare and such in North America, First Nations or Native Americans) were chiefdoms, not primitive communism. Then you lash out for no reason, and I mean no reason. This is not a discussion of culture, it's a pointing out that the social development you ascribed to native Americans is wrong. Get your head out of the gutter.


What in your mind is the socio economic class difference between a chiefdom and primitive communism? Where does the barrier lie between them? How did you determine that all American Indian tribes had this economic form, especially when there are specific examples out there of primitive/agrarian communist societies too? There are some still to this day.



What it seems like, to me, is that you don't know what monoculturalism means and that, or how it is used here, and that you get your knicks in a bunch for thinking we are suggesting that everyone will wear sterile clothing live in identical housing units with only one form of artistic expression allowed. That's not monoculturalism, well it is, but not how we envision communism.
Blake is partially right in his concern though - monocultural political movements in the past were a pretext to discriminate against minority cultures in favor of the hegemonic culture.



Japan is monocultural, yet diverse, with four written alphabets, different ethnicities, various subcultures, and undoubtedly innumerable artistic expressions.
Is Japan REALLY the best example of a "monocultural" ideal? First off, any "singular culture" was imposed by warfare against ethnic minorities the Ainu. Second off, mainland Japan is hostile to immigration and has one of the lowest populations of foreigners in the major industrialized countries. Third, cultural chauvinism was an important part of Imperialist Japanese ideology. And as for different ethnicities - the vast majority of the people in Japan are ethnic Japanese, and the other nationalities like the Okinawans or Koreans were not exactly brought into the Japanese nation peacefully.

IMO any culture today will exhibit the problems of a Capitalist society - racism, imperialism, patriarchy and internal hegemonies.



Communism will be monocultural, with one primary reason being that socialisation of children occurs through collective child rearing. Communism will allow for various subcultures, expressions of individual identity, various living arrangements -- collectives, polygamy, communal, individual -- and allow individuals to express themselves through whatever art form they wish, no matter how shitty, speak the languages they wish, clothe themselves as they please, enjoy the cuisines they want. I imagine children be raised bi- or multilingual. This is not contrary to the concept of monoculture.
I wouldn't oppose a more diverse image of "monoculture" but at this point it's as much a blurring of the divisions between many cultures as the creation of a singular centralized culture. Really the difference between "monocultures" and "multiple cultures" only makes sense in a world of nationalities and national divisions.

[Greek Warrior]

OK then, let's obliterate our names and use numbers instead. Like They did in Cambodia.
So repulsive.

[blake 3:17]

I find the use of Japan utterly bizarre.

I'll admit to losing my temper & posting in haste & maybe it not being rude that I've been a revolutionary for 20 + years. We get worn. A supremely radicalizing event in my life was the 50th anniverversary of the mass murders committed against the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Having been insulted by RB and Tim C for being irrelevant and personal I won't bother explaining why. The rest of you have enough personal compassion it doesn't matter.

[Remus Bleys]

Having been insulted by RB and Tim C for being irrelevant and personal I won't bother explaining why. The rest of you have enough personal compassion it doesn't matter.
It sure does take personal compassion to call someone a nazi, huh?

[Tim Cornelis]

I think different cultures make the world diverse and a better place and should not be destroyed.

Though I do think that having a monoculture would logical but I don't think many people would agree with me, who would create this monoculture? (wouldn't parts of a specific culture gain dominance?), what would happen if other cultures objected to other cultures having more dominance in this new monoculture?

A monoculture would make the society more standardised and everything would be the same, personally I like different cultures and if a communist society is going to have a monoculture it should be made up of every single culture (minus all the religious stuff) to ensure fairness.

A monoculture would not arise through conscious policy of some kind. It would not be imposed, but organically form through, primarily, the common socialisation of children through collective child rearing.

Britain is multicultural, with Pakistanis, Jamaicans, Irish, etc. But if we get all the children from each these background and they are reared collectively they are socialised with the same values, customs, and so forth. They would be free to develop and adopt a lifestyle which they find most enjoyable, but these would be distinct lifestyles and not cultures per se.

Communism would have a diversity of distinct lifestyles, but not various cultures, at least not within one territory.


What in your mind is the socio economic class difference between a chiefdom and primitive communism? Where does the barrier lie between them? How did you determine that all American Indian tribes had this economic form, especially when there are specific examples out there of primitive/agrarian communist societies too? There are some still to this day.

A chiefdom is based on neolithic gardens with some degree of stratification and political hierarchy (some warfare), primitive communism -- the band society -- is based on hunting and gathering and is egalitarian (no warfare).

Anthropologist Elman Service presented a system of classification for societies in all human cultures based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

Gatherer-hunter bands, which are generally egalitarian.
Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank and prestige (see Chiefdom).
Stratified tribal societies led by chieftains.
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiefdom


Blake is partially right in his concern though - monocultural political movements in the past were a pretext to discriminate against minority cultures in favor of the hegemonic culture.

No one is interested in imposing a monoculture.


Is Japan REALLY the best example of a "monocultural" ideal?

I don't know, I never said it was. I used it as an example of a society with some level of diversity that still qualifies as monocultural.



Having been insulted by RB and Tim C for being irrelevant

Just one last misconstruction of what's actually been said to justify your tantrum. That you protested this or that does not pertain to what's being discussed in this thread, hence irrelevant to this subject.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

primitive communism -- the band society -- is based on hunting and gathering and is egalitarian (no warfare).



I don't know about this. Hunter gatherer societies were not monolithic mirror images of one another, and there was most definitely warfare for a time in some hunter-gatherer societies (especially during times of scarcity, close proximity and calamitous environmental events). An example of this is the Kakadu region in Northern Australia. Around 30'000 years ago(?), cave art began to abruptly change from flowing artworks of culture and religion to rigid sketches of killing and warfare. This change in artwork coincided directly with the time during which the enormous land bridge between Papua New Guinea and Australia was being submerged in water released at the latter stages of the ice age. There is undeniable evidence of mass warfare in Northern Australia/Papua New Guinea stretching from this period, most likely due to scarcity, sudden close proximity of groups, an unpredictable environment and competition for food. There is also evidence of historical ritual warfare between hunter-gatherer groups through parts of Native America, Africa and Australia.

The egalitarian assessment is something in which I agree completely with you, and the nonsensical idea of 'warfare being a natural human urge dating back to the earliest societies' is a ridiculous pile of historically inaccurate and exaggerated bullshit, but warfare did happen - it simply was extremely uncommon or due to local customs in certain regions.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Am I one of the few people who agrees with OP?

Also, multiculturalism is incompatible with Marxism.


The communist mode of production abolishes the proletariat.

Anyway back on subject. Who doesn't think communism will be monocultural? And why?

It would have to be.
Communism >= Egalitarianism
Multiculturalism is not compatible with egalitarianism. It's different cultures competing over which is better (constantly). That's why the USSR was anxious to suppress religion, and even when they strengthened the Orthodox church they weakened other religions (and even persecuted members of said religions).

Communism is about the working class and the proletariat, and it's about unity. And likewise, multiculturalism is a dividing force.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Am I one of the few people who agrees with OP?

Also, multiculturalism is incompatible with Marxism.



It would have to be.
Communism >= Egalitarianism
Multiculturalism is not compatible with egalitarianism. It's different cultures competing over which is better (constantly). That's why the USSR was anxious to suppress religion, and even when they strengthened the Orthodox church they weakened other religions (and even persecuted members of said religions).

Communism is about the working class and the proletariat, and it's about unity. And likewise, multiculturalism is a dividing force.

What the fuck is this shit? How in the hell is multiculturalism a 'dividing force'? Again with the generalizing paranoiac shit one would expect from a far-right group. Cultures existing and mixing together does not spell apocalypse - indeed, the reverse is commonly true. I know a guy who as a child lived in Syria, and there were no tensions between Muslims and Christians whatsoever. He remembers the local Christians bringing over fruits and having dinner together. The current 'cultural conflict' is not a cultural one - it is a politically manufactured one.


The USSR was anxious to suppress religion because they held major power.However, it also suppressed minority groups throughout the country under the pretense of blatantly chauvinist 'russification'. Hell, Stalin himself made an entire ethnic group death-march into Siberia because some Nazi supporters were members of that ethnic group:


On December 27, 1943, Soviet authorities declared the Kalmyk people guilty of cooperation with the German Army and ordered the deportation of the entire Kalmyk population to various locations in Central Asia and Siberia. In conjunction with the deportation, the Kalmyk ASSR was abolished and its territory was split between adjacent Astrakhan, Rostov and Stalingrad Oblasts and Stavropol Krai. To completely obliterate any traces of the Kalmyk people, the Soviet authorities renamed the former republic's towns and villages..

Remind anyone of anything? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide)


So in short, the USSR did not suppress ethnic minorities and cultures because it was 'good for socialism'. It did so because it was - at the time of Stalin's advent - incredibly chauvinistic in-government.

[Marshal of the People]

OK then, let's obliterate our names and use numbers instead. Like They did in Cambodia.
So repulsive.

That is actually a very good idea (good in that it being very efficient and logical), though I doubt it would work very well.

[Sabot Cat]

That is actually a very good idea (good in that it being very efficient and logical), though I doubt it would work very well.

Numbering people isn't very efficient or logical. There are over seven billion people, and you would quickly get polysyllabic names that are similar to other people's with no good way of shortening it. So people would refer to each other by nicknames, and... goodness, do I have to explain why something so obviously dystopian is a bad idea?

"I am not a number!"