My theory

[democratic-socialist]

Socialism - A unique concept created by both intellectuals and many normal people. This post is to confirm to people what socialism is against, and what it promotes. Finnaly, it is to tell the truth behind what socialist ideas really will and will not work.

Typical primitive Socialism is against Capitalism. What links all primitiove socialists is a common belief that Capitalism is bad and creates evil social consequences. These include the following:

- Capitalism necessarily produces the class system, which is socially diverse and sets class against class. Inequality means unnessasary and unjust differences between rich and poor, which involve differences of wealth, power and oppertunity. A situation is created in which some people have power over the lives of others. It is a system that is based on exploitation, in which workers who create the wealth are denied their fair share of it. And inequality is perpetuated from one generation to the next through inheritence.
- It is also a system that is profoundly inefficient. People suffer poverty, unemployment and squalor becasue of the blind workings of a system over which they have no control. Production is for profit instead of for use. For example, the consumer society produces useless but profitable products, while people's needs are not met where it is not profitable to do so.
- Finally, the capitalist system has a deleterious effect on human nature, bringing out the worst in people and suppressing the best. It tends to make people competitive, greedy, selfish and ruthless. Important human values, such as cooperation and compassion, are suppressed or ditorted by greed. Everyone is out for themselves and that sense of community, which human beings need, is undermined.

These are fair statements and true. Primitive socialism believes that the only real alternative is a fully socialist system, which many of you belive in also. It is belived that a fully socialist system would have the following features:

- There would be common ownership of the economy, with little or no private property. There would therefore be no class system and no one would have the means to exploit anyone else.
- There would be equality of wealth, and thereofre of power and oppertunity.
- Production would be for use and not for profit, while competition would be replaced by cooperation. The competitive free-for-all would be replaced by planning.
- Everyone would work for the community and contirbute to the common good; society would be based on the principle, in Marx's words, of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
- Human nature would flourish, no longer distorted by poverty or greed, and a society would develope in which the goods of the world were freely shared and where everyone cared for eachother.

Everything so far sounds all good and dandy for you beleivers in a fully socialist society, until now. All of this is taken on the assumption of one thing. That human charcter is essentially good, and that the evils of poverty, crime, cruelty, ignorance and war, are NOT down to human nature. Well, im sorry to burst your bubble, but in reality, in the real world, humans are bad. And that is why a fully coialist system simply would not work.

Now thats out of the way, we have to consider what would work. In my opinion, we can create a socialist society, but within CAPITALISM. Capitalism is bad, but if modified correctly, it can be turned into a force for good. Capitalism does drive peoples insentive to work becasue it plays off of peopels greed and want for money, a system that is a fully socialist society does not have this insentive to work. Many of you would say that "Peoples social concious would drive them, to help the community and themselves", but in the real world that would not happen. If the correct rules are put in palce, and private businesses cannot exceed certain limits, this will create both jobs and give people freedom to run thier own business. FREEDOM - the key word. It is wrong to not let people have the FREEDOM to start thier own enterprise becasue that is a breach of freedom.

My society would be fully government run, no privatisation save for telephone companies and perhaps airlines. Transport would not be paid by direct tax. This means that the amount of motor car usage would decrease and would reduce damage to the environment as well as stop grid lock. This in turn would save both private companies and government run servies millions of pounds/dollars, becasue the roads would be open and traffc jams would become a thing of the past.

Equality would be a must, and rasism would be a number one priority for the police force. It would continue to be a welfare state and help the less fortunate. However, jobs for pople of any background would be available within government services.

I am sorry to have trailed slightly from my arguement, but I have touched on a few of my theories and ideas, but what they all basically boil down to is, a left-wing socialist democracy, within a capitalist system is the only realistic way forward for left wingers like ourselves. Fully communist and socialist societies and systems DO NOT WORK in the real world.

Please give me some comments on the above statments with logical answers that arnt basically a load of bollox. :)



(Some quotes have been taken from the book, "Political Ideology Today", by Ian Adams.)

[BOZG]

So basically you're a capitalist apologist who thinks it can be reformed. This site is for lefties. Stick in the cage.

[democratic-socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 06:48 PM
So basically you're a capitalist apologist who thinks it can be reformed. This site is for lefties. Stick in the cage.
yes and no. I am in ways a capitalist. I belive that capitalism is the society which works best for the majority IF used correctly. I belive that socialist ideas combined with the basic capitalist frame is the way forward. The most REALISTIC way forward. And how on earth can you think thta I ma not left wing? everything i have said is left wing. I think its about time you actually read what is said before you stick your nose in and have a complain... Learn some politics boy&#33; <_<

[BOZG]

Anyone who actually wishes to maintain the capitalist system is not left wing. Centrist at best.

[The Role Of Ideology]

I read up to about this point where the misconceptions started:


- Everyone would work for the community and contirbute to the common good; society would be based on the principle, in Marx&#39;s words, of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
- Human nature would flourish, no longer distorted by poverty or greed, and a society would develope in which the goods of the world were freely shared and where everyone cared for eachother.


First the labour would have to become so productive that the mental antithesis between effort and labour would be destroyed and people would be able to take as much as they need from public supplies/stocks/whatever they have in the far far future, because labour would be SO productive that this would be possible.

Geddit?

[democratic-socialist]

Originally posted by The Role Of [email protected] 3 2004, 07:04 PM
I read up to about this point where the misconceptions started:


- Everyone would work for the community and contirbute to the common good; society would be based on the principle, in Marx&#39;s words, of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
- Human nature would flourish, no longer distorted by poverty or greed, and a society would develope in which the goods of the world were freely shared and where everyone cared for eachother.


First the labour would have to become so productive that the mental antithesis between effort and labour would be destroyed and people would be able to take as much as they need from public supplies/stocks/whatever they have in the far far future, because labour would be SO productive that this would be possible.

Geddit?
Yeah, but people will start to tka emore than needed and peoples drive to work would dwindle, as they would find it unfair that some people take more than needed. This would then cause people to all take to much and that would fall apart. even more of a problem though is how that could ever be put in place. Its a good idea, but not a realistsic one.

[The Role Of Ideology]

Yeah, but people will start to tka emore than needed and peoples drive to work would dwindle

But if work becomes so easy and productive that you can&#39;t take more than the guy next to then what is the problem?

[democratic-socialist]

I&#39;m afraid I just can&#39;t see it working. There will always be people you want more than others. Greed is the killer of communism i fear... as seen in the past.

[The Role Of Ideology]

What can you not see working about it? If there is so much food that you can take as much as you want then what is the problem? This is only the end result of a LONG struggle and after a period of socialist transition which is probably what we today should be focusing on...

[democratic-socialist]

Originally posted by The Role Of [email protected] 3 2004, 08:38 PM
What can you not see working about it? If there is so much food that you can take as much as you want then what is the problem? This is only the end result of a LONG struggle and after a period of socialist transition which is probably what we today should be focusing on...
and how do u suppose that transition begins? don&#39;t say revoltution... <_<

[The Role Of Ideology]

Why not? What is wrong with revolution?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by democratic&#045;[email protected] 3 2004, 08:20 PM
I&#39;m afraid I just can&#39;t see it working. There will always be people you want more than others. Greed is the killer of communism i fear... as seen in the past.
Sure, because most attemps of creating "good capitalism" have been successful...in keeping the same old order or even worsening it.

No thanks

And by the way, people wont want to have "more than others" because the concept of "having" will change a lot. Such people will be seen as psychos who want to be "the new fuhrer". They won&#39;t be tolerated.

[ComradeRed]

Why not? What is wrong with revolution? Revolution is a fruit that has not yet riped. Where it can work here or there, it must work everywhere&#33;


Greed is the killer of communism i fear... as seen in the past. The myth of human nature ;)

[Saint-Just]

In my opinion, we can create a socialist society, but within CAPITALISM.

This is impossible, by definition. A socialist society is defined as one in which the means of production are in common ownership.


in the real world, humans are bad.

Stating this makes you appear to be a capitalist. As you pointed out, socialists view human nature as fundamentally good. You are sorry to &#39;burst my bubble&#39;? Can you substantiate your assertion that human nature is fundamentally corrupt?


It is wrong to not let people have the FREEDOM to start thier own enterprise becasue that is a breach of freedom.

The illigality of murder is also a breach of freedom. Is it not correct to restrict certain freedoms?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by democratic&#045;[email protected] 3 2004, 01:50 AM
In my opinion, we can create a socialist society, but within CAPITALISM. Capitalism is bad, but if modified correctly, it can be turned into a force for good.
Capitalism is bad for a reason. It developed to that point for a reason. Capitalism is a system of economics which the essence of is profit. Capitalism is the system of profit. Meaning it is designed for people to get rich by using other people who are not fortuante enough to be given the opporunity or simply lack the will power to attempt to attain such a position. Rendering them with no other choice but to sell their labour to people who have that opporunity. This system of economics is protected by governments and states which seek to maintain that agenda of profit.

You can not reform it to make it nicer? In what way will you make it nicer? The most you can achieve is making exploited people more comfortable in their exploitation. You will not end exploitation, which is what people on this board oppose fundamentally.

The list you gave of problems are problems, but that is not the underlying reason for the desire to change capitalism. To live in a meaningful worl, exploitation has to end. The ability to use other human beings to create wealth is fundamentally wrong and that is what we have to stop. You can not stop it through reform. The capitalists and leaders of the world are not going to allow a government to end exploitation through legal means. How could you? How could you stop factory owners and huge corporations from exploiting their workers? The only way you can do that is by giving control to the workers. The bosses arent going to allow you to do that. As soon as a government gets to a point where this is possible, they will be overthrown, wither by outside or internal forces. It has happened before, it will happen again.


FREEDOM - the key word. It is wrong to not let people have the FREEDOM to start thier own enterprise becasue that is a breach of freedom.

Freedom is not having to sell your labour to survive. By giving "freedom" to business people, you are taking the freedom of the workers away from them. You are allowing a human being to exploit the fact another human being can not survive unless they sell their labour to them.


My society would be fully government run, no privatisation save for telephone companies and perhaps airlines.

Your giving yourself a way a little bit dont you think? "My society"? This isnt about you. It is about achieving a better society. Governments are designed to keep this system of exploitation in place under the control of a ruling class who benifit from it. The concept of governance needs to be defined. Governance by what, by whom and for what purpose?

On the of telephone companies and airlines, they should be controlled by the people who make them function and for the purpose of society. Not controlled by private individuals for the purpose of profit.


Equality would be a must, and rasism would be a number one priority for the police force.

The police force is inherently racist for a start, and secondly its purpose is not to defend equality. It is to protect the system of capitalism and those who control it. Equality can not come by mandating a tool for state oppression. Equality must come through people understanding the concepts of inequality and a desire in themselves to change. You can not force equality on people.


It would continue to be a welfare state and help the less fortunate.

But the point is there should be no less fortunate. Everyone should be equal, depening on their contribution to society. The concept of a welfare state exists because capitalism as an economic system fails to provide for everyone. Society should move to eradicate poverty and the less fortunate by removing the thing that causes it and giving power to people to affect change in their lifes. For themselves. Otherwise what is the point?


However, jobs for pople of any background would be available within government services.

How very noble of you.


but what they all basically boil down to is, a left-wing socialist democracy, within a capitalist system is the only realistic way forward for left wingers like ourselves.

No. It is the limit of your understanding that makes it "realistic." In fact, nothing you have mentioned appears to be realistic. I do not subscribe to bourgeois politics because it is the bourgeois who create the exploitation and oppression in society in the first place. Do not make assumptions about what is right for left wingers, because your understanding of society and its purpose is limited in definition when compared to the vast understanding of many comrades on this board. Your opinions are treachourous to the working class and amount to nothing but a disgusting apology for capitalism..."Yes capitalism is bad. But its the only way we can exist." Sorry mate, but it isnt the only way we can live. It maybe the only way you can achieve some level of fame and authority as a champion of working class rights, but for us serious about chaning society, you do not fool us. I am not like you, and neither are many others on this board, so dont make assumptions like "ourselves." Your politics is a sham, and one day, the workers will realise how much these ideas sell them out and woe be the tide.


Fully communist and socialist societies and systems DO NOT WORK in the real world.

You have no ceonception of what the real world is. You have a liberal white wash explination for what capitalism is. Nothing more. You have not spoken at any length to refute communism acecpt recite bourgeois dogma about human nature. This board has eben around for a while, as have many fo the members. Try a new tactic, because that one is getting old.

Communism maybe a theory, but it is the only theory that will ever create a society where want, exploitation and oppression no longer exist. It is a theory I will fight for. Whether your social democracy exists or not&#33;

[Wenty]

Anyone who actually wishes to maintain the capitalist system is not left wing. Centrist at best.

Thats idiotic, at best.

[The Feral Underclass]

I love the way you just interject with one line wonders. Care to elaberate, I am interested to know myself exactly what you mean.

[Fuck subjectivists&#33;]

[The Role Of Ideology]

Ha, I always had you pinned as an anarchist rather than a communist Joe(^).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Role Of [email protected] 4 2004, 03:14 PM
Ha, I always had you pinned as an anarchist rather than a communist Joe(^).
Anarchism is principly communism...

As an anarcho-communist, I class myself as a communist. Just not a marxist. Or a dirty leninist.

[The Role Of Ideology]

The end goals are the same yes, but via different methods.

Rather than fanciful direct transitionism communists tend to have some kind of plan or another...

[The Feral Underclass]

I would hardly call it fanciful. It is simply a rejection of leninist style of organzation. Not only because it dosnt work, but because it is completely unnecessary.

Read this thread:

Anarcho-Communism, The myth of sponteniety (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24365)

[BOZG]

Thats idiotic, at best.

Thank you for that.



I class myself as a communist. Just not a marxist. Or a dirty leninist.

[Fuck subjectivists&#33;]

Everyone is out to get me these days.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 07:02 PM
Anyone who actually wishes to maintain the capitalist system is not left wing. Centrist at best.
your an idiot, and quite frankly dont know a thing. There are many examples of leftists who wish to reform the capitalist system, rather than abolish it. Just because you are an extream leftist, does not make you any more of a leftist.

Get an education.

[BOZG]

I don&#39;t consider them leftists. Get over it. Also if I&#39;m an extreme leftist, it does actually make me more leftist. You get an education. He&#39;s a capitalist apologist like most social democrats. I respect Lardlad&#39;s beliefs more than that.

[The Feral Underclass]

How can you be a marxist and a subjectivist?

[BOZG]

My reality develops materially but that reality as a whole is subjective. And because it is the only reality I know, I must live within it and apply its principles. It&#39;s a complicated theory which makes much more sense in my mind than on paper because I can&#39;t formulate it through words.

[BOZG]

Actually what&#39;s this got to do with the above fluffs?

[The Feral Underclass]

I think I could waiver my anti-authority principles if it meant shooting subjectivists....now that would be fun...

"see this gun huh...you think it aint reall....*BANG*...it is now"

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 06:20 PM
I don&#39;t consider them leftists. Get over it. Also if I&#39;m an extreme leftist, it does actually make me more leftist. You get an education. He&#39;s a capitalist apologist like most social democrats. I respect Lardlad&#39;s beliefs more than that.
OMG, what a complete fool, you are either a leftist or you are not. Their are different types and extreams of leftism, but you are either a leftist or you are something else. It is boolean, logical, on or off, yes or no, 0 or 1, true or false. There are only two possible answers.

I don&#39;t consider them leftists.

What you consider is irrelevant, the fact of the matter, he IS a leftist, and you are a a fool. Democratic socialists are leftists.

He&#39;s a capitalist apologist like most social democrats.

You dont even know what a social democrat is you twit, this persons views are far too leftwing to be considered social democrat views.

Jesus, why do you insist on posting shite&#33;?

[BOZG]

Socialism cannot exist within a capitalist framework, get that into your thick fucking head. He wishes to create some sort of society built on this basis, therefore he does not support the abolition of capitalism. He&#39;s a capitalist apologist. Are you too fucking stupid to understand that? He supports capitalism whether directly or indirectly, he cannot be classified as leftwing. As for what I consider him being irrelevant, why does your opinion matter anymore? Is there some sort of supernatural dividing line?

As for the more left, it&#39;s based on your idea of extreme and non-extreme you fucking idiot. If you can only be a leftist or not a leftist, then there is no extreme. Get an education.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:12 PM
Socialism cannot exist within a capitalist framework, get that into your thick fucking head. He wishes to create some sort of society built on this basis, therefore he does not support the abolition of capitalism. He&#39;s a capitalist apologist. Are you too fucking stupid to understand that? He supports capitalism whether directly or indirectly, he cannot be classified as leftwing. As for what I consider him being irrelevant, why does your opinion matter anymore? Is there some sort of supernatural dividing line?

As for the more left, it&#39;s based on your idea of extreme and non-extreme you fucking idiot. If you can only be a leftist or not a leftist, then there is no extreme. Get an education.
Socialism cannot exist within a capitalist framework,

tell that to Robert Owen, one of only a few people to make a true working socialist model, where his community all workers lived in as near to equality as possible, but in order to support the society it had to make a profit, by selling its produce. thus improving the community. That is a socialist system based on a capitalist framework.

Moron, why dont you try reading up your leftist history before making bullshit comments, especially on a board like this where someone is guaranteeded to pick you up for it.

He&#39;s a capitalist apologist.

And you are a moron, as we have established.

Are you too fucking stupid to understand that?

Considering the shit you&#39;ve said, that is a truly remarkable statement.

he cannot be classified as leftwing.

You obviously fail to understand what leftism is.

As for the more left, it&#39;s based on your idea of extreme and non-extreme you fucking idiot.

Being more or less extream does not make you more of less of a leftist. To be considered a leftist you must be on the left of the political scale, left of central. This person clearly is. Just because you have more extream views, does not alter the fact that you are on the same side of the line, it just makes you a different type of leftist.

Get an education.

:rolleyes:

[Comrade Zeke]

To: BornofZaptasguns don&#39;t criztized his ideas are perfectly logical I wouldn&#39;t mind having a police force stand up for all people&#39;s rights to deffend them against the attacks from the Rascists you can&#39;t judge people by the color of their skin. And please shut up about the Leftist stuff Democratic Socalists are Lefists anyone is a leftists if they beilive in good socail well being, retrictions or total derstruction of the rich capitalist calss, democracy and in the green&#39;s case love of nature. And please don&#39;t swear at a newbie....it sounds un cool.
I think his ideas are very pratical. But I would want the airlines owned by the people not by the capitalists. Telaphones are ok lol
Zeke

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 4 2004, 01:36 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 4 2004, 01:36 PM)
The Role Of [email protected] 4 2004, 03:14 PM
Ha, I always had you pinned as an anarchist rather than a communist Joe(^).
Anarchism is principly communism...

As an anarcho-communist, I class myself as a communist. Just not a marxist. Or a dirty leninist. [/b]
Communist means Marxist. A communist looks at societ in a different way to an Anarchist. To a communist class is of greater significance.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+May 5 2004, 07:38 PM--> (Chairman Mao @ May 5 2004, 07:38 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2004, 01:36 PM

The Role Of [email protected] 4 2004, 03:14 PM
Ha, I always had you pinned as an anarchist rather than a communist Joe(^).
Anarchism is principly communism...

As an anarcho-communist, I class myself as a communist. Just not a marxist. Or a dirty leninist.
Communist means Marxist. A communist looks at societ in a different way to an Anarchist. To a communist class is of greater significance. [/b]
Marx didnt invent the concept of communism, he made it scientific. Principles which anarcho-communists, as class anarchism, subscribes to. I think your understanding of anarchism is little or misunderstood. Of course class is of significance just as much as it is to Marxists. We simply believe that communism can be achieved in a different way.

Please elaberate on what you are saying further so you can be corrected further.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 5 2004, 08:10 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; May 5 2004, 08:10 PM)
Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 5 2004, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2004, 01:36 PM

The Role Of [email protected] 4 2004, 03:14 PM
Ha, I always had you pinned as an anarchist rather than a communist Joe(^).
Anarchism is principly communism...

As an anarcho-communist, I class myself as a communist. Just not a marxist. Or a dirty leninist.
Communist means Marxist. A communist looks at societ in a different way to an Anarchist. To a communist class is of greater significance.
Marx didnt invent the concept of communism, he made it scientific. Principles which anarcho-communists, as class anarchism, subscribes to. I think your understanding of anarchism is little or misunderstood. Of course class is of significance just as much as it is to Marxists. We simply believe that communism can be achieved in a different way.

Please elaberate on what you are saying further so you can be corrected further. [/b]
Communism is not necessarily as Marx described it. However, I would suggest that as a communist is understood it is as a Marxist. I rarely say things which I accept need correction afterwards.

You are clearly wrong about Anarchy. Anarchy is a complete rejection of external control, this takes principal importance in Anarchy. In Marxism, a class analysis of society takes greater significance than this anarchist principal. Therefore, Marxism sees class as more significant than it does in Anarchism since a complete rejection of external constraint is the most important principal of Anarchy.

I would also say my understandinf of Anarchy is reasonable and well understood.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 6 2004, 06:46 PM
You are clearly wrong about Anarchy. Anarchy is a complete rejection of external control, this takes principal importance in Anarchy.
External control of what, for whom and why?


In Marxism, a class analysis of society takes greater significance than this anarchist principal.

In some variants of anarchism this maybe the case. But anarcho-communism is class based and analysis society based on those principles.


Therefore, Marxism sees class as more significant than it does in Anarchism since a complete rejection of external constraint is the most important principal of Anarchy.

The most important principle of anarcho-communism is a rejection of authority and hierarchical structure. It does not reject class, but accepts that history has been made up of historical struggles by oppressed classes and that the working class are the final class and will eventually move towards removing the ruling class from control. What is rejected is the need of a vangaurd or the perpetration of a state before, during and after a revolution. Because it is unnecessary for one thing, and also because, my the nature of the state, can not lead to anything other than what has been displayed through out the history of marxism-leninism.

[Saint-Just]

External control of what, for whom and why?

External control for an individual in social situations. One individual has authority over another so a certain function can be performed. Anarchists are against authority used for many different purposes that I would not put under in category.


In some variants of anarchism this maybe the case. But anarcho-communism is class based and analysis society based on those principles.

I have never come across anarcho-communism before.

I understand your explanation. And, yes in the sense that I implied you did not use a class analysis of society I was wrong.


[the state,]by the nature of the state, can not lead to anything other than what has been displayed through out the history of marxism-leninism.

I agree. And thats what I would like to see the majority of young people who come to this forum believe that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 9 2004, 09:01 PM
I have never come across anarcho-communism before.
Its one of the biggest variants.


I agree. And thats what I would like to see the majority of young people who come to this forum believe that.

Can you explain this please.

[DaCuBaN]

eg, there are too many people who think the state can become anything other than what history has proved it can become

Short sighted basically

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 4 2004, 01:36 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 4 2004, 01:36 PM)
The Role Of [email protected] 4 2004, 03:14 PM
Ha, I always had you pinned as an anarchist rather than a communist Joe(^).
Anarchism is principly communism...

As an anarcho-communist, I class myself as a communist. Just not a marxist. Or a dirty leninist. [/b]
Yeah, Anarchists are just inpatient Communists, huh joe :D

[Saint-Just]

Its one of the biggest variants.

I didn&#39;t know that.


Can you explain this please.

You said, [the state]by the nature of the state, can not lead to anything other than what has been displayed through out the history of marxism-leninism.

You are saying that the state in a socialist society will inevitably, by the very nature of the state, operate as the many Marxist-Leninist states of recent history have. That the same kind of society as in Socialist China and Russia will be constructed.

I said that I agree with this and that I would like it if people who come to this site could realise the same thing.

[The idealist]

Personally I support the idea of communisme through socialisme, the difficult part is not only revolution (which takes you to socialisme) but also the change from socialisme to communisme.

A direct change from capitalisme to communisme is not possible, people need a "spearhead". Eg. someone to follow.

After socialisme had been introduced, government control can be slowly decreased until the entire country is run by commity.

Naturally there will still have to be a sort of "police" to ensure that people don&#39;t cause trouble by trying to enforce capitalist ideals.

Until people are entirely used to that system, such cases will occur.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 10 2004, 02:27 PM
You said, [the state]by the nature of the state, can not lead to anything other than what has been displayed through out the history of marxism-leninism.

You are saying that the state in a socialist society will inevitably, by the very nature of the state, operate as the many Marxist-Leninist states of recent history have. That the same kind of society as in Socialist China and Russia will be constructed.

I said that I agree with this and that I would like it if people who come to this site could realise the same thing.
I&#39;m confused...Are you a marxist-leninist...are you a communist? I dont get it... is this a trick?

[The Feral Underclass]

Chairman Mao

If you want to read more about anarcho-communism there are links in the Che-Lives Dictionary that maybe interesting for you to look at.

Che-Lives Dictionary (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21255)

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2004, 04:51 PM
I&#39;m confused...Are you a marxist-leninist...are you a communist? I dont get it... is this a trick?
I am a Marxist-Leninist. And, I see Marxism-Leninism as it was practised in the USSR and PRC. Unfortunately, a lot of people come to this site with a completely different (bourgeois) view of Marxism-Leninism. I would prefer people be able to see that those socities were the result of Marxist-Leninist ideology and that they were the kind of socitieties Marx and Lenin envisioned.

I have heard of Anarcho-Communism of course. But I have never heard anything about it. I have read learnt about other Anarchist ideologies. I have read some things about Libertarian Communism though, and looking at that link it appears to be the same thing. However, I did not know that Libertarian-Communism was an Anarchist ideology.

Edit: I read some of the link to a book written by Kropotkin. I see where it fits in with Anarchism now. I have heard of Kropotkin before in the context of collectivist Anarchism, but from reading some of that book a minute ago he seems to criticise collectivists. I remember his theory of evolution, that is fairly good. I imagine you know a bit about that yourself.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 11 2004, 10:44 AM
I would prefer people be able to see that those socities were the result of Marxist-Leninist ideology and that they were the kind of socitieties Marx and Lenin envisioned.
Marx talked very little about how a socialist society would look. He only talked about the need for a transtional period, and even that was vague. Marx wanted Communism, ie a stateless, classless, non governmental society. As did Lenin. I am sure Lenin envisioned Russia and China in that way, but they certainly did not want it to remain like that. My point is that the transition from Socialism to Communism can not happen because the state invariably will corrupt the system, regardless of the intentions because of the very nature of the state.

If it is socialism you want, then the state works fine, if it is communism, which is what Marx and Lenin wanted, then the state can not be used in achieving it

.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 11 2004, 09:23 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 11 2004, 09:23 AM)
Chairman [email protected] 11 2004, 10:44 AM
I would prefer people be able to see that those socities were the result of Marxist-Leninist ideology and that they were the kind of socitieties Marx and Lenin envisioned.
Marx talked very little about how a socialist society would look. He only talked about the need for a transtional period, and even that was vague. Marx wanted Communism, ie a stateless, classless, non governmental society. As did Lenin. I am sure Lenin envisioned Russia and China in that way, but they certainly did not want it to remain like that. My point is that the transition from Socialism to Communism can not happen because the state invariably will corrupt the system, regardless of the intentions because of the very nature of the state.

If it is socialism you want, then the state works fine, if it is communism, which is what Marx and Lenin wanted, then the state can not be used in achieving it

. [/b]
Yes, but Marx did have a number of ideals about the way a society would work. Particularly on an economic level and I would want people to recognise that these existed in the USSR or PRC. I don&#39;t think the state in the PRC or the USSR was corrupt, but I see your point as to how you would like people to view the state in relation to communism, that is to say the state can have no part in the creation of a communist society.

But, a lot of people who come to this site favour a state but will say it will behave differently to that of the state in the USSR and PRC.

[elijahcraig]

My point is that the transition from Socialism to Communism can not happen because the state invariably will corrupt the system, regardless of the intentions because of the very nature of the state.

Would this not mean, as well, by your logic, that any system of human relationship in political management is “invariably” corrupted? It only seems the following logical conclusion.



In a comment on the original post by “democratic-socialist”…your entire logic is flawed and based on reformism, which is reactionary.

[Osman Ghazi]

The problem with Leninists is that they cannot acknowledge the extent of their failure. They blame the return to capitalism on the individual leaders (Krushchev, Deng etc.) but they fail to realize one thing: a Krushchev or Deng comes along every time. Being determines conciousness. If you attempt to use the &#39;tools of the enemy&#39;, you invariably become the enemy. Especially if the transition to communism occurs over a period of more than one generation, because the newcomers to the party invariably view it as the patry&#39;s right to rule.

All they can do now is encourage people to have greater &#39;revolutionary obediance&#39;.

"If only we could make the people obey, we&#39;d be set".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:23 AM
Would this not mean, as well, by your logic, that any system of human relationship in political management is “invariably” corrupted? It only seems the following logical conclusion.
No&#33;

[Mike Fakelastname]

Personally, I agree with about everything the poster said. You might stop reading this now and dismiss me as a "bourgeois capitalist reformist" or whatever you wish, but please hear me out.

Revolutionary/scientific socialism, by its very definition, is not intended for economically advanced countries. What revolutionary/scientific socialism is intended for, is backwards ass countries that haven&#39;t had a chance to develop through a nice phase of healthy capitalism. And if you open up a history book you will see that revolutionary/scientific socialism has a long history of failure&#33;

If you revolutionary/scientific socialists were not so obsessed with symbolism, you would see this also. Marx&#39;s ideas no longer apply to the world exactly as they were written, times have changed and ideologies should be flexible enough to change with them.

Now, another thing that revolutionary/scientific socialists seem to think is that socialism is just going to up and happen with one fell swoop of revolution. If you think about your Dialectic Materialism, you would know that socialism must stem from capitalism. Socialism isn&#39;t going to happen through revolution, I promise you that, those days are over. Let me clarify that, socialism in America will not come through revolution, maybe in less advanced countries there&#39;ll be a few socialist revolutions and temporary progressive governments that are powerless to do anything.

If it&#39;s to happen universally at all, it will come eventually and through reform. And this isn&#39;t going to happen by just electing a socialist president...

My idea is that we should focus on one thing at a time, first thing being to get some progressives into congress. I believe awhile back a socialist was elected into the House of Representatives, that&#39;s what we need to focus on. Reformed capitalism can = socialism.

A higher minimum wage, a taxable estate, a maximum wage system (through higher taxes on the wealthy), stricter state regulated factories/other means of production, and socialized education, health care, and even housing projects (I&#39;m thinking federal run apartment complexes, where if you needed to you could live there for free temporarily, and make up for it in higher taxes or something) are the realistic goals. Again, these will not come all at once, they will come once we get our priorities straight and get progressives into congress and state governments.

The idea of socialism in America coming through revolution is unrealistic at best, and purely symbolic. This is not to say it&#39;s impossible, because I for one believe that about anything is possible, I just think that if socialism in America is to be successful, it will not come through revolution but reform. And once more, I&#39;m only talking about advanced capitalist countries such as the United States here, revolutionary socialism seems to come and go all the time in economically unstable nations.

[redstar2000]

All of this is taken on the assumption of one thing. That human character is essentially good, and that the evils of poverty, crime, cruelty, ignorance and war, are NOT down to human nature. Well, I&#39;m sorry to burst your bubble, but in reality, in the real world, humans are bad. And that is why a fully socialist system simply would not work.

No one knows what "human character" is, "good" or "bad". You are just guessing...like everyone else.


Capitalism is bad, but if modified correctly, it can be turned into a force for good.

What we need on this board is a Magic Forum. Water into wine, lead into gold, capitalism into "a force for good".


It is wrong to not let people have the FREEDOM to start their own enterprise because that is a breach of freedom.

And it&#39;s also "wrong" to not let people own slaves because that is a "breach" of "freedom for slaveowners".


Fully communist and socialist societies and systems DO NOT WORK in the real world.

Communist societies haven&#39;t existed long enough to say whether or not they would "work". The socialist countries did devolve back into capitalism...primarily for material reasons.

Your judgment is premature.


There are many examples of leftists who wish to reform the capitalist system, rather than abolish it.

Yes...we call them fake leftists.


Revolutionary/scientific socialism, by its very definition, is not intended for economically advanced countries.

No, the exact opposite is the case. Marx and Engels thought that the first communist revolutions would take place in the United States, England, France and Germany...the most developed countries of their day.

Those still seem like reasonable choices to me...with the understanding that they still may be considerably distant into the future.


And if you open up a history book you will see that revolutionary/scientific socialism has a long history of failure&#33;

How long did it take capitalism to triumph over feudalism?


Marx&#39;s ideas no longer apply to the world exactly as they were written, times have changed and ideologies should be flexible enough to change with them.

A platitude...no one disagrees with that in principle. The question is always changed how?


Socialism isn&#39;t going to happen through revolution, I promise you that, those days are over.

How is it that all these fake lefties acquire crystal balls "that really work" while mine is always so damn murky?


If it&#39;s to happen universally at all, it will come eventually and through reform.

Here, at least, we&#39;re on solid ground. We don&#39;t need a crystal ball at all (lucky for me&#33;)...we can actually watch all those "glorious reforms" disappear before our very eyes&#33;


My idea is that we should focus on one thing at a time, first thing being to get some progressives into congress.

I nominate the Easter Bunny&#33;


Reformed capitalism can = socialism.

Reformism = capitalism lite.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

How is it that all these fake lefties acquire crystal balls "that really work" while mine is always so damn murky? :lol:

Thanks... it&#39;s been a long shift and I needed that :D


Water into wine, lead into gold, capitalism into...

There&#39;s a word wants to fall off the tip of my tongue there. You know what it is ;)

What you are forgetting of course is that the process through which wine is made uses water, and through fermentation with grapes becomes wine. Lead can be turned into gold - the basic ingredients are there, but it&#39;s far more effort to do than is worthwhile.

Capitalism into Communism? If the previous examples are anything to go buy, it&#39;s by no means impossible. But it will take hard work to do. So long as you do not fear this, then it&#39;s surely an inevitability ;)

Revolution - revolve - change. Why does everyone have this mixed up with revolt?


There are many examples of leftists who wish to reform the capitalist system, rather than abolish it.

This is a real pet hate of mine... Why are the two mutually exclusive? why can we not plot the downfall of the power that be whilst simultaneously attempting to reform the system - to make the best of a bad situation. What the hell is wrong with that?

[redstar2000]

Why can we not plot the downfall of the power that be whilst simultaneously attempting to reform the system - to make the best of a bad situation. What the hell is wrong with that?

Two things.

1. It sends a mixed and indeed self-contradictory message.

If genuine reform is possible, then revolution is superfluous...we just keep adding reforms until we get everything we want.

But if genuine reform is not possible and revolution is the only real option, then why tell people something different? Why raise their hopes over and over again to see them crushed and people becoming disillusioned and utterly disgusted with politics...and with us?

2. It sends the wrong message. Everything we&#39;ve seen in recent decades strongly suggests that real reforms in the interests of the working class are no longer possible and, further, that all the reforms of 1930-1950 are going to be watered-down or completely abolished.

The ruling class is lining up scapegoats for this process: it&#39;s "because" of the "aging population"; it&#39;s "because" of "environmental concerns"; it&#39;s "because" of the "oil crisis", blah, blah, blah.

The real reason is that capitalism doesn&#39;t work very well anymore (perhaps that old Marxist "devil" is at work -- "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time").

The period when substantive reforms were possible is over...probably for good. The new century is going to resemble the 19th century a lot more than it will the 20th...at least from the worker&#39;s point of view.

Murky as it is, that&#39;s what my "crystal ball" is saying.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

Thanks for the response


If genuine reform is possible, then revolution is superfluous...we just keep adding reforms until we get everything we want.

To clarify first: revolution is to remove one power and replace with another - through force or otherwise. revolt is what is really meant when talking about revolution - the removal of power by force. The word popular must of course be added for either of these words to be used in relation to communism


if genuine reform is not possible and revolution is the only real option, then why tell people something different? Why raise their hopes over and over again to see them crushed and people becoming disillusioned and utterly disgusted with politics...and with us

The trick is we do not do this - the greatest thing (or only great thing perhaps) about the current system is the anonymity of the ballot box - we can vote reformists into power, and when their reforms fail as you believe they inevitably will, we will have moved one step closer to revolt


Everything we&#39;ve seen in recent decades strongly suggests that real reforms in the interests of the working class are no longer possible and, further, that all the reforms of 1930-1950 are going to be watered-down or completely abolished

Pessimism, although it&#39;s a school of thought I myself subscribe to i don&#39;t believe we can apply it to our actions and become apathetic. Just because the statistics show that reformism doesn&#39;t help, does not mean that it can do no good, or is entirely futile. After all, many people on this board would refute if I were to assert that Capitalism works based on the fact that the US (one of the most capitalist nation currently in existence) has a higher mean average wage than most other nations.

You yourself know, that statistics are meaningless and are all too easily perverted to suit a particular argument


The ruling class is lining up scapegoats for this process: it&#39;s "because" of the "aging population"; it&#39;s "because" of "environmental concerns"; it&#39;s "because" of the "oil crisis", blah, blah, blah.

The real reason is that capitalism doesn&#39;t work very well anymore (perhaps that old Marxist "devil" is at work -- "the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time").

Again, I feel this does nothing but reinforce my point.
If social reforms are crippling the capitalist system, should we not in fact push even harder for it? Does this not in fact bring us, closer to revolution?

Perhaps even a peaceful one


The period when substantive reforms were possible is over...probably for good. The new century is going to resemble the 19th century a lot more than it will the 20th...at least from the worker&#39;s point of view.

Murky as it is, that&#39;s what my "crystal ball" is saying.


I find by standing on one leg and humming the third F# below C i can get a pretty fair picture... ;)

[Mike Fakelastname]

No, the exact opposite is the case. Marx and Engels thought that the first communist revolutions would take place in the United States, England, France and Germany...the most developed countries of their day.

Those still seem like reasonable choices to me...with the understanding that they still may be considerably distant into the future.

This is another thing that pisses me off, people who assume Marx was a psychic. There is a very possibility that he was WRONG about the possibilities of revolution in nations with advanced economies and impossibly strong and highly stable states such as America, after all, he was going on nothing more than a (highly) educated guess.


Originally posted by edstar
No, the exact opposite is the case. Marx and Engels thought that the first communist revolutions would take place in the United States, England, France and Germany...the most developed countries of their day.

Those still seem like reasonable choices to me...with the understanding that they still may be considerably distant into the future.

I personally believe that revolution is a step in a backwards direction, so what I mean by that is that the opportunity for our socialist revolution existed during the time period before/during the cold war, and unless there is another stock market crash, Bush gets reelected ( :) ), or another world war or something to that effect in the foreseeable future, we wont have another chance at a successful revolution. Think outside the box for a minute and face the facts, the social conditions for revolution simply do not exist in American society, and it would take a whooooooooole lot to change that, and right now reform is our only possible option, whether you agree with it or not.


How long did it take capitalism to triumph over feudalism?

Fine, I&#39;ll give you that one...


A platitude...no one disagrees with that in principle. The question is always changed how?

I answered that already, along with an example, get some progressivists into a functioning position in government. My example was that a man named Bernie Sanders, a socialist, was elected into the House of Representatives recently.


How is it that all these fake lefties acquire crystal balls "that really work" while mine is always so damn murky?

Let&#39;s be fair, you seem to foresee your revolution coming just as well as I foresee that it wont happen. So why don&#39;t you admit that you don&#39;t know when (if at all) it will come.


Here, at least, we&#39;re on solid ground. We don&#39;t need a crystal ball at all (lucky for me&#33;)...we can actually watch all those "glorious reforms" disappear before our very eyes&#33;

That&#39;s why I mentioned that we shouldn&#39;t get ahead of ourselves, and take it nice, slow, and realistically. We should focus on one thing at a time, such as getting out of the Iraqi war, or gay marriage even. If we focus on the big picture, let&#39;s use your case and say revolution, then realistically the only thing you can do is to sit around and read socialist magazines, type socialist articles, and wait for something to happen.


I nominate the Easter Bunny&#33;

Stop dodging, progressivists are gradually gaining grounds in America, and even more so in other locations around the world.


Reformism = capitalism lite.

Alright, well if "capitalism lite" works, and it&#39;s a step in a better direction, would you disagree with it? I sure as hell wouldn&#39;t, "capitalism lite" could theoretically be reformed into full socialism or even, if you&#39;re more daring, communism.

[redstar2000]

...we can vote reformists into power, and when their reforms fail as you believe they inevitably will, we will have moved one step closer to revolt.

No, I rather doubt you can even elect any reformists any more...certainly not in any significant numbers.

Where would you find them? The Democrats are deeply conservative and the Republicans are almost semi-fascist. Both are deep in the pockets of the capitalist class...and thus unlikely to "bite the hand" that feeds them.

The legal barriers against third parties are significant...and can easily be raised even higher than they are now.

And, you assume that they count the ballots honestly. After Florida, I don&#39;t think that is justified any longer.

So your perspective, in the end, boils down to an endless succession of unsuccessful election campaigns.

You assume that this dreary record will "inspire revolt"...I think it&#39;s much more likely to inspire boredom.


Just because the statistics show that reformism doesn&#39;t help, does not mean that it can do no good, or is entirely futile.

I wasn&#39;t arguing from numbers, per se, but your objection is self-contradictory.

If reformism "doesn&#39;t help", then what "good" can it "do", and why is it not "futile"?


If social reforms are crippling the capitalist system, should we not in fact push even harder for it? Does this not in fact bring us, closer to revolution?

It doesn&#39;t matter how hard you "push"...they are going to get rid of them as quickly as they can.

The only thing that might delay or even briefly reverse that trend is massive protest in the streets -- not bullshit electoral politics.

But reforms are difficult to organize mass disruption over; they usually benefit only a part of the masses and the rest see little reason to offer more than token support.

Consider "national health insurance" for example...that would be a significant reform in the United States. About 40 million people would directly benefit.

But most of those people are either young and healthy ("who needs health insurance?") or old and sick...folks who couldn&#39;t walk a two-block demonstration without collapsing and in absolutely no shape to "raise hell in the streets".

I think this liability applies to all reforms; they are, by their very nature, partial and have little potential for mobilizing the working class as a whole.


Perhaps even a peaceful one?

It&#39;s not usually revolutions that are "violent and bloody"...it&#39;s the civil wars that often accompany them.

How violent the "next wave" of proletarian revolutions will be is impossible to predict at this point.


This is another thing that pisses me off, people who assume Marx was a psychic. There is a very possibility that he was WRONG about the possibilities of revolution in nations with advanced economies and impossibly strong and highly stable states such as America; after all, he was going on nothing more than a (highly) educated guess.

No, he wasn&#39;t "guessing". His theory "predicted" that communism, as the "next stage" of human society, would "naturally" arrive to succeed the most developed capitalist societies.

He was quite specific about this: no new epoch of production emerges until all the possibilities of the old epoch have been exhausted.

You are free, of course, to argue otherwise.


Think outside the box for a minute and face the facts, the social conditions for revolution simply do not exist in American society, and it would take a whooooooooole lot to change that, and right now reform is our only possible option, whether you agree with it or not.

I think reform is a non-starter, as I&#39;ve indicated.

I quite agree with you that much must change before proletarian revolution is "on the agenda" in the United States. Perhaps by the last quarter of this century, things will look brighter here.

Meanwhile, if you would actually like to participate in a proletarian revolution (I know you don&#39;t, but others might), I suggest you move to a country in western Europe, become fluent in one or more European languages, take out citizenship, and go to work.

That&#39;s your "best shot".


My example was that a man named Bernie Sanders, a socialist, was elected into the House of Representatives recently.

Actually, I think he&#39;s been there awhile.

Noticed any difference?


Let&#39;s be fair, you seem to foresee your revolution coming just as well as I foresee that it won&#39;t happen.

No, I&#39;m not claiming "inevitability"...just high probability. You, on the other hand, are certain of your reformist perspective and equally certain that revolution will "never happen".

I think the probability is quite high (0.99) that reformism will never amount to a puddle of warm spit.


We should focus on one thing at a time, such as getting out of the Iraqi war, or gay marriage even.

Your perspective doesn&#39;t allow that, actually. Reformists are even more divided than revolutionaries. Each has his/her "pet reform" and is extremely reluctant to "take a back seat" to someone else&#39;s reform.

I&#39;m quite sure, for example, that there are many conservative gay people who strongly desire to get legally married but have no problem with imperialist war at all...and some of them may even volunteer to serve in this one or the next one.

It&#39;s quite possible for reformists to be strongly in favor of a particular "progressive" reform in the overall context of a reactionary political outlook.


If we focus on the big picture, let&#39;s use your case and say revolution, then realistically the only thing you can do is to sit around and read socialist magazines, type socialist articles, and wait for something to happen.

Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24823)

As an aside, it&#39;s interesting that many Leninists throw that old armchair at me too. If you&#39;re not building the "vanguard party", then you "must be just sitting on your ass".

No, it&#39;s not necessary to "just wait".


Stop dodging, progressivists are gradually gaining grounds in America, and even more so in other locations around the world.

"Progressivist" = fake leftist.


Alright, well if "capitalism lite" works, and it&#39;s a step in a better direction, would you disagree with it? I sure as hell wouldn&#39;t, "capitalism lite" could theoretically be reformed into full socialism or even, if you&#39;re more daring, communism.

Dream on. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Mike Fakelastname]

Originally posted by redstar
No, he wasn&#39;t "guessing". His theory "predicted" that communism, as the "next stage" of human society, would "naturally" arrive to succeed the most developed capitalist societies.

He was quite specific about this: no new epoch of production emerges until all the possibilities of the old epoch have been exhausted.

You are free, of course, to argue otherwise.

Prediction, guessing, same difference, Miss Cleo makes predictions too... And regardless of whether he was right or wrong, all possibilities of our current "epoch" will not be "exhausted" for quite some time, do you want to know why? Because our current epoch is moving on an indefinite line, which you view as a circle...


I think reform is a non-starter, as I&#39;ve indicated.

I quite agree with you that much must change before proletarian revolution is "on the agenda" in the United States. Perhaps by the last quarter of this century, things will look brighter here.

Meanwhile, if you would actually like to participate in a proletarian revolution (I know you don&#39;t, but others might), I suggest you move to a country in western Europe, become fluent in one or more European languages, take out citizenship, and go to work.

That&#39;s your "best shot".

But do you really believe that you will make any impact big enough to expand the European proletarian&#39;s social consciousness enough to incite him/her to revolution? And I&#39;m not being a smart ass and saying just you, I&#39;m talking about if you had a never-ending supply of resources and members in your movement, I still doubt that you would be able to incite a revolution powerful enough to knock a state out.

Unfortunately for you (you already realize this, I&#39;m sure, but I will repeat it anyway) revolution is not "incited" by a particular social movement, it is brought on by environmental conditions. But with rock steady stable states such as America, Japan, UK, or other European nations the conditions do not exist and the states will not permit them to exist (ever again if they can help it). Therefore, as I have stated before, the unstable backwards nations with weak states where a revolution would be possible are not prepared or advanced enough for socialism/.


Actually, I think he&#39;s been there awhile.

Noticed any difference?

Actually yes, I found my long lost keys today.


No, I&#39;m not claiming "inevitability"...just high probability. You, on the other hand, are certain of your reformist perspective and equally certain that revolution will "never happen".

I think the probability is quite high (0.99) that reformism will never amount to a puddle of warm spit.

Regardless of the amount of worm spit reformism will amount to if you give it time, it will always amount to more than sitting around with your thumb up your ass while making revolutionary speeches and handing out revolutionary pamphlets praying for something to happen...


Your perspective doesn&#39;t allow that, actually. Reformists are even more divided than revolutionaries. Each has his/her "pet reform" and is extremely reluctant to "take a back seat" to someone else&#39;s reform.

I&#39;m quite sure, for example, that there are many conservative gay people who strongly desire to get legally married but have no problem with imperialist war at all...and some of them may even volunteer to serve in this one or the next one.

It&#39;s quite possible for reformists to be strongly in favor of a particular "progressive" reform in the overall context of a reactionary political outlook.

You&#39;re absolutly right, but as you&#39;ve seen in the past, no matter how divided we are, we are actually the only ones to get things done.


Demonstrate Against Fake "Elections" (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24823)

As an aside, it&#39;s interesting that many Leninists throw that old armchair at me too. If you&#39;re not building the "vanguard party", then you "must be just sitting on your ass".

No, it&#39;s not necessary to "just wait".

Ok, so you might convince a few people to stay home and not vote, [i]WHERE THE HELL DOES THAT GET YOU? Now, you just have more people like yourself, sitting at home typing away on your computer and waiting for a spectacular revolution to come, while the state gets stronger than ever from not having to worry about a few votes&#33; I repeat myself once more: you, your movement, or ANY movement, cannot possibly do anything to incite revolution, because revolution (and I HATE to sound this corny) comes from within... Even if what you say is true, and reform turns out to be a big flop, it has still accomplished MUCH more than revolution...


"Progressivist" = fake leftist.

Your mother...


Dream on. :lol:

You too.

-

To sum it up, if revolution were possible, I would join the revolutionary bandwagon in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, revolution is NOT possible (at least not in this "epoch"). To put it bluntly, it&#39;s either reform, or sitting around, handing out flyers and making speeches, and waiting for times to change, when in fact, our chances for revolution are fast dwindling as the state gets stronger and more stable each day.

Edit: And let me say this, before I started reading some of Noam Chomsky&#39;s work, I "used" to be a downright revolutionary conspirator. Chomsky hit me with a sack of reality bricks, he made me realize that the state is FAR too strong for revolution, if it ever happens, to have any effect. Basically, that&#39;s when I realized that we should work from the inside and not the outside, that we should try reform as a substitute for revolution. And I will point out the irony in this before you do: Chomsky would most likely not agree with me, he would agree with you.

[DaCuBaN]

OK i&#39;m going to scream

I just wrote out about 800 words of response to the previous two posts only for the fucking board to log me out and when I try and return to my previous page it had expired

I&#39;m going to go break something, then scream some. Perhaps I&#39;ll try and retype it again some point this shift <_< :angry:

[DaCuBaN]

Ok here goes...


So your perspective, in the end, boils down to an endless succession of unsuccessful election campaigns.

You assume that this dreary record will "inspire revolt"...I think it&#39;s much more likely to inspire boredom.

My assumption is by no means ungrounded: Every socialist revolution in history has occured either by means of a coup (in which case it would be socialist in name alone) or through increasing social awareness - something that I firmly believe can only be achieved once the delusion that our current political system can work through reform has been utterly refuted.


If reformism "doesn&#39;t help", then what "good" can it "do", and why is it not "futile"?

My argument rest firmly on the principle that reformism is entirely futile. Only by thoroughly proving this can we move forward to a popular revolt.

It&#39;s a step that has not been attempted thus far, and given that Marx himself asserted that communism was most likely to appear in a country such as the UK or US it in fact seem highly probable that reforms would play a key role in elevating social consciousness to the level necessary for revolution


If social reforms are crippling the capitalist system, should we not in fact push even harder for it?

Is this not what we all want?


It doesn&#39;t matter how hard you "push"...they are going to get rid of them as quickly as they can.

The only thing that might delay or even briefly reverse that trend is massive protest in the streets -- not bullshit electoral politics.


Mass protest is in fact playing straight into the hands of the current system - if you continue along these lines it merely prolongs the myth that the USA is a &#39;free&#39; nation and allows people to continue thinking that the status quo does in fact work. It does nothing but harm the growing social conscience in the western world and thus delay the inevitable revolt. If we push on the lines of reform, people will become slowly more disheartened as the far right in reponse attempts to strengthen their own standpoint and remove the reforms that we fight for. This can only improve social awareness as the population would be able to clearly see that well meaning people are simply being ignored and that reform is not truly possible in the long term.

In other words, reform brings about revolt as a result of it&#39;s failure


Consider "national health insurance" for example...that would be a significant reform in the United States. About 40 million people would directly benefit.

But most of those people are either young and healthy ("who needs health insurance?") or old and sick...folks who couldn&#39;t walk a two-block demonstration without collapsing and in absolutely no shape to "raise hell in the streets".


Again, this is not a problem with the current political layout (no matter how flawed we all think it is) but with the mindset of the general population. Until these people accept their social responsibilities things will not change. A catalyst is undoubtably reguired for this - historically this has been famine or war, but who is to say that reform couldn&#39;t bring around the same conclusion?

[redstar2000]

And regardless of whether [Marx] was right or wrong, all possibilities of our current "epoch" will not be "exhausted" for quite some time, do you want to know why? Because our current epoch is moving on an indefinite line, which you view as a circle...

This is rather obscure but I guess you mean my proposition that the 21st century will resemble the 19th century much more than it will the 20th.

But I have no idea what you mean by "an indefinite line" unless you have thrown away your crystal ball and now maintain that history proceeds by chance and circumstance.

That&#39;s certainly a "respectable" position; all bourgeois historians endorse it and so do many lefties.

At this time, many people find Marx too "determinist" for their tastes; they prefer a more "open ended" analysis that allows them room for "infinite speculation" on the "limits of the possible".

As you wish; history itself will resolve the dispute.


But do you really believe that you will make any impact big enough to expand the European proletarian&#39;s social consciousness enough to incite him/her to revolution?

Huh? No, I don&#39;t mean anything like that.

My estimate (or guess&#33;) is the the proletariat in western Europe will be the first to make a modern proletarian revolution...and if a young North American communist wants to actually be a part of it, that&#39;s the place to go.

I&#39;m actually confirming part of your view; that revolution in North America is further away into the future and much more must change here before that happens.


But with rock steady stable states such as America, Japan, UK, or other European nations the conditions do not exist and the states will not permit them to exist (ever again if they can help it).

Emphasis added.

Like all reformists in one sense or another, your view of things is a-historical.

What is "rock steady" and "stable" now is what will "forever remain so."

In the year 363CE, the Roman Emperor Julian, having utterly smashed the barbarians in the west, led a victorious army to the very gates of the Parthian capital.

48 years later, Rome was sacked and just 64 years after that, the last Roman emperor in the west was deposed.

Things change&#33;


Regardless of the amount of warm spit reformism will amount to if you give it time, it will always amount to more than sitting around with your thumb up your ass while making revolutionary speeches and handing out revolutionary pamphlets praying for something to happen...

Your own faith is quite touching.

But I would rather "have my thumb up my ass" than my head&#33;


You&#39;re absolutely right, but as you&#39;ve seen in the past, no matter how divided we are, we are actually the only ones to get things done.

And then you bawl like babies when those "mean old capitalists" turn right around and undo all that you&#39;ve "achieved".


Now, you just have more people like yourself, sitting at home typing away on your computer and waiting for a spectacular revolution to come, while the state gets stronger than ever from not having to worry about a few votes&#33;

Do you think that the kinds of people who might respond to the demonstration I propose are utterly incapable of anything but typing on a computer keyboard?

And, for that matter, perhaps typing on a computer keyboard might be the "best" thing for many people to do right now. What better place than a message board like Che-Lives to get rid of a lot of bourgeois reformist crap that they might have floating around in their heads.

Such as "the state is too powerful to overthrow...it will be eternal".


To put it bluntly, it&#39;s either reform, or sitting around, handing out flyers and making speeches, and waiting for times to change, when in fact, our chances for revolution are fast dwindling as the state gets stronger and more stable each day.

Emphasis added.

The state "was, is, and ever shall be".


And let me say this, before I started reading some of Noam Chomsky&#39;s work, I "used" to be a downright revolutionary conspirator. Chomsky hit me with a sack of reality bricks, he made me realize that the state is FAR too strong for revolution, if it ever happens, to have any effect.

Yes, Professor Chomsky certainly seems to have had a pernicious effect lately. It was bad enough that he criticized the Cuban government for locking up a bunch of mercenary "dissidents".


Basically, that&#39;s when I realized that we should work from the inside and not the outside, that we should try reform as a substitute for revolution. And I will point out the irony in this before you do: Chomsky would most likely not agree with me, he would agree with you.

Nope, no irony involved at all. He, like you, has followed his logic to its inevitable conclusion...he&#39;s voting for John Kerry and calls for all of us to do likewise.

Clueless Chomsky (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24602)


Every socialist revolution in history has occurred either by means of a coup (in which case it would be socialist in name alone) or through increasing social awareness - something that I firmly believe can only be achieved once the delusion that our current political system can work through reform has been utterly refuted.

Yes, that&#39;s true.

But the question is: are communists required to demonstrate that reformism doesn&#39;t work?

It&#39;s not as if there is any "shortage" of people who advocate reformism, support candidates, run for office, blah, blah, blah.

What need is there for communists in this process...especially since our message is entirely different?

What we want the working class to do is resist the capitalist system...not try to "fix it".


My argument rest firmly on the principle that reformism is entirely futile. Only by thoroughly proving this can we move forward to a popular revolt.

I agree...but I don&#39;t see why that&#39;s the task of communists. Let those who believe that capitalism is both "worth fixing" and "can be fixed" proceed to their chosen tasks.

You and I both understand that their efforts are doomed; why should we help them in their hopeless cause?

Indeed, why shouldn&#39;t we attack their ridiculous perspective?

Why shouldn&#39;t we tell that small number of people who are presently receptive to our ideas the truth? Proletarian revolution, however long it takes and however difficult it may be is the only alternative to capitalist barbarism&#33;


It&#39;s a step that has not been attempted thus far, and given that Marx himself asserted that communism was most likely to appear in a country such as the UK or US, it in fact seems highly probable that reforms would play a key role in elevating social consciousness to the level necessary for revolution.

It has been attempted before, most notably by German Social Democracy, c.1891-1914.

And your statement at least implies that the "more" reforms we "win", the "higher" class consciousness will "become".

The converse appears to actually be the case; to the extent "capitalism with a human face" appears plausible, the interest in revolution and a real change in the nature of class society declines.

I will grant that there is evidence on both sides of this dispute...sometimes "great reforms" do seem to "raise" class consciousness, at least for a time.

But when you stop and think about it, if "things are really getting better", then why would most rational people want to take the risks involved in making revolution?


Mass protest is in fact playing straight into the hands of the current system - if you continue along these lines it merely prolongs the myth that the USA is a &#39;free&#39; nation and allows people to continue thinking that the status quo does in fact work. It does nothing but harm the growing social conscience in the western world and thus delay the inevitable revolt.

I confess that this is one of the most wacko statements I&#39;ve read on this board.

Anyone who has been on a mass demonstration in recent years is under no illusion that the USA is a "free" nation. Police violence against non-violent demonstrators is now routinely at a level not seen since the days of Birmingham and "Bull" Connor in the early 1960s. What was scandalous in those "innocent" days is now standard operating procedure.

MIAMI POLICE: Torture, Beatings, Sexual Assault&#33; (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19438&hl=)

Every mass protest from the left now contributes to the revolutionary process&#33;


If we push on the lines of reform, people will become slowly more disheartened as the far right in response attempts to strengthen their own standpoint and remove the reforms that we fight for.

That will happen even if communists are not present.

The problem is that becoming "disheartened" does not necessarily mean becoming "revolutionary".

Reformism also makes people cynical, corrupt, and even compels them "against their will" to move towards the right.


A catalyst is undoubtedly required for this...but who is to say that reform couldn&#39;t bring around the same conclusion?

Me&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

the question is: are communists required to demonstrate that reformism doesn&#39;t work?

It&#39;s not as if there is any "shortage" of people who advocate reformism, support candidates, run for office, blah, blah, blah.

What need is there for communists in this process...especially since our message is entirely different?

What we want the working class to do is resist the capitalist system...not try to "fix it".


I believe that it is absolutely essential that communists get involved in the current political system as reformists. As you mentioned, there are an abundance of centrists already following this path, but these people do not seek the same goals at all - In fact most simply wish to join the upper eschalons of society (as they see it) and will abandon reform just as quickly. It is for this reason that I believe we must get involved - otherwise who will truly show how rotten the system is?

I understand your reasoning... but have you really resigned yourself to never seeing at least a socialist US?

Bear in mind a socialist state can be achieved through our current system anyway (not that I advocate this approach), and I believe the theory goes Capitalism->Socialism->Communism

Put simply, it puts us on the right tracks.

That aside, I&#39;m not asking that you surrender your ideals and submit to bourgeoise politics - But that you abuse the current system to your benefit. We both know that reforms will help in the short term, but are ultimately futile and may in fact bring revolt ever closer.

In other words it&#39;s a win-win scenario :D


It has been attempted before, most notably by German Social Democracy, c.1891-1914

Indeed it has, and I had clean forgotten about the wonderful Prussians.
Kaizer Wilhelm rather spoiled all that though didn&#39;t he? Still, by my count...

Failed Reformists: 1
Failed Revolutionaries: Countless

Now, that was very much the devils advocate, but alas it&#39;s also quite correct.


why should we help them in their hopeless cause?

Indeed, why shouldn&#39;t we attack their ridiculous perspective?

Why shouldn&#39;t we tell that small number of people who are presently receptive to our ideas the truth? Proletarian revolution, however long it takes and however difficult it may be is the only alternative to capitalist barbarism&#33;

We should not help their cause: We would be far more of a hinderance than a help. If any extreme leftists tried to wrest control from the current rulers through legitimate means, the chances are the masses (who mostly do not vote) could well come out in our support. Again, only increasing the chances of a revolt to oust the current regime - and certainly worth a shot

My point is do not dilute your ideas: make it perfectly clear that you believe we are playing with fire; that capitalism will only end badly; that the only reason you are even present is to pull the carpet out from underneath them.

Revolt within the system exported to the streets.


when you stop and think about it, if "things are really getting better", then why would most rational people want to take the risks involved in making revolution?

As an example look at Nazi Germany. Hitler managed to wrestle support to get his party into a prominent position in the Reichstag(sp?) and then (admittedly due to a severe economic crisis) severely &#39;reformed&#39; the system and took absolute control.

Not to forget the Spanish Anarchists who (foolishly) refused to take control of the parliament. I mean they didn&#39;t have to do anything but have a presence

Two lessons from history that show exactly what can be done from within, and what can happen if you refuse to participate. Communists may have a name for being ruthless but most are pussycats compared to those who currently run the world


Mass protest is in fact playing straight into the hands of the current system - if you continue along these lines it merely prolongs the myth that the USA is a &#39;free&#39; nation and allows people to continue thinking that the status quo does in fact work. It does nothing but harm the growing social conscience in the western world and thus delay the inevitable revolt

My apologies for not making this crystal - I was referring to the famous &#39;Having your cake and eating it&#39; attitude that is attributed to the US - nothing else.


The problem is that becoming "disheartened" does not necessarily mean becoming "revolutionary".

Reformism also makes people cynical, corrupt, and even compels them "against their will" to move towards the right.


We have seen throughout history that the &#39;revolution&#39; can be led (my dislike for it alas does not make it any less truthful). All that is really necessary to begin the evolution towards communism is a few people to set the wheels in motion.

I don&#39;t see anyone trying to step up to the plate for this task though, and most likely anyone who would volunteer I would feel unable to entrust with such a task <_< Just as I&#39;m sure you would not entrust it to me - and this is the biggest downfall of my theorem

I will submit on your last point. Moving into the political arena is playing with fire, and if you are not resolute, you will be consumed by it. Do you fear for your convictions comrade?





A catalyst is undoubtedly required for this...but who is to say that reform couldn&#39;t bring around the same conclusion?

Me&#33;


What did I tell you.... 3rd F# below C get&#39;s the crystal ball glowing :rolleyes: :lol: ;)

[redstar2000]

As you mentioned, there are an abundance of centrists already following this path, but these people do not seek the same goals at all - In fact most simply wish to join the upper echelons of society (as they see it) and will abandon reform just as quickly. It is for this reason that I believe we must get involved - otherwise who will truly show how rotten the system is?

They (the reformists) are perfectly capable of this task...indeed, to anyone who&#39;s been paying attention, they&#39;ve already done so.

The role of communists is to get people to pay attention.


I understand your reasoning... but have you really resigned yourself to never seeing at least a socialist US?

At 62, I&#39;m "resigned" to not seeing much of anything, unless they find a way to reverse the aging process.

But a "socialist U.S." wouldn&#39;t be worth hanging around for, in my opinion.

Socialism is really just capitalism without capitalists (for a while).

I&#39;m a communist...and not really interested in any "substitutes".


and I believe the theory goes Capitalism->Socialism->Communism.

My theory goes: capitalism -> proletarian revolution -> communism.


But that you abuse the current system to your benefit.

Cute word play there; but guess the outcome of any contest between professionals and amateurs playing the "pro&#39;s" game, by their rules, on their turf?

They will eat people like you (and even me) for breakfast&#33;

It&#39;s an odd delusion, when you stop and think about it. A great many "lefties" think that they can "play bourgeois politics" better than the people who do it for a living.

As if I were to read a book on hitting by Ted Williams and think that I was therefore not only qualified to step into the batter&#39;s box against Randy Johnson but would actually hit a home run. :lol:

Talk about delusions of grandeur&#33;


Failed Reformists: 1
Failed Revolutionaries: Countless

I think a more detailed and critical examination of the people that you place in the category of "revolutionaries" would show that a great many of them -- indeed a substantial majority -- were really reformists armed with little more than scraps and tatters of revolutionary rhetoric.


As an example look at Nazi Germany. Hitler managed to wrestle support to get his party into a prominent position in the Reichstag and then (admittedly due to a severe economic crisis) severely &#39;reformed&#39; the system and took absolute control.

That&#39;s a vast oversimplification of what happened...and hardly a relevant example for communists in any event.


Not to forget the Spanish Anarchists who (foolishly) refused to take control of the parliament.

No, the foolish mistake was not "refusing to take control" of parliament; it was their failure to disperse it...to "smash the bourgeois state machinery" inspite of the fact that both Marx and Bakunin had explicitly told them to do that.

I think the lesson has been learned; every anarchist I&#39;ve ever discussed the matter with bemoans that critical blunder and is determined never to repeat it.

I believe them.


Moving into the political arena is playing with fire, and if you are not resolute, you will be consumed by it. Do you fear for your convictions comrade?

Of course not&#33; My ego is just as swollen as yours. I won&#39;t be corrupted...but all the rest of you sorry bastards will be&#33;

You think you won&#39;t be corrupted...but you will be.

Everybody who&#39;s tried your strategy thinks they won&#39;t be corrupted...but that&#39;s what happens&#33;

Always.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Mike Fakelastname]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 08:10 PM

And regardless of whether [Marx] was right or wrong, all possibilities of our current "epoch" will not be "exhausted" for quite some time, do you want to know why? Because our current epoch is moving on an indefinite line, which you view as a circle...

This is rather obscure but I guess you mean my proposition that the 21st century will resemble the 19th century much more than it will the 20th.

But I have no idea what you mean by "an indefinite line" unless you have thrown away your crystal ball and now maintain that history proceeds by chance and circumstance.

That&#39;s certainly a "respectable" position; all bourgeois historians endorse it and so do many lefties.

At this time, many people find Marx too "determinist" for their tastes; they prefer a more "open ended" analysis that allows them room for "infinite speculation" on the "limits of the possible".

As you wish; history itself will resolve the dispute.


But do you really believe that you will make any impact big enough to expand the European proletarian&#39;s social consciousness enough to incite him/her to revolution?

Huh? No, I don&#39;t mean anything like that.

My estimate (or guess&#33;) is the the proletariat in western Europe will be the first to make a modern proletarian revolution...and if a young North American communist wants to actually be a part of it, that&#39;s the place to go.

I&#39;m actually confirming part of your view; that revolution in North America is further away into the future and much more must change here before that happens.


But with rock steady stable states such as America, Japan, UK, or other European nations the conditions do not exist and the states will not permit them to exist (ever again if they can help it).

Emphasis added.

Like all reformists in one sense or another, your view of things is a-historical.

What is "rock steady" and "stable" now is what will "forever remain so."

In the year 363CE, the Roman Emperor Julian, having utterly smashed the barbarians in the west, led a victorious army to the very gates of the Parthian capital.

48 years later, Rome was sacked and just 64 years after that, the last Roman emperor in the west was deposed.

Things change&#33;


Regardless of the amount of warm spit reformism will amount to if you give it time, it will always amount to more than sitting around with your thumb up your ass while making revolutionary speeches and handing out revolutionary pamphlets praying for something to happen...

Your own faith is quite touching.

But I would rather "have my thumb up my ass" than my head&#33;


You&#39;re absolutely right, but as you&#39;ve seen in the past, no matter how divided we are, we are actually the only ones to get things done.

And then you bawl like babies when those "mean old capitalists" turn right around and undo all that you&#39;ve "achieved".


Now, you just have more people like yourself, sitting at home typing away on your computer and waiting for a spectacular revolution to come, while the state gets stronger than ever from not having to worry about a few votes&#33;

Do you think that the kinds of people who might respond to the demonstration I propose are utterly incapable of anything but typing on a computer keyboard?

And, for that matter, perhaps typing on a computer keyboard might be the "best" thing for many people to do right now. What better place than a message board like Che-Lives to get rid of a lot of bourgeois reformist crap that they might have floating around in their heads.

Such as "the state is too powerful to overthrow...it will be eternal".


To put it bluntly, it&#39;s either reform, or sitting around, handing out flyers and making speeches, and waiting for times to change, when in fact, our chances for revolution are fast dwindling as the state gets stronger and more stable each day.

Emphasis added.

The state "was, is, and ever shall be".


And let me say this, before I started reading some of Noam Chomsky&#39;s work, I "used" to be a downright revolutionary conspirator. Chomsky hit me with a sack of reality bricks, he made me realize that the state is FAR too strong for revolution, if it ever happens, to have any effect.

Yes, Professor Chomsky certainly seems to have had a pernicious effect lately. It was bad enough that he criticized the Cuban government for locking up a bunch of mercenary "dissidents".


Basically, that&#39;s when I realized that we should work from the inside and not the outside, that we should try reform as a substitute for revolution. And I will point out the irony in this before you do: Chomsky would most likely not agree with me, he would agree with you.

Nope, no irony involved at all. He, like you, has followed his logic to its inevitable conclusion...he&#39;s voting for John Kerry and calls for all of us to do likewise.

It would seem that we are more or less in relative agreement. You accept that a lot must change in America, and even in Western Europe, before revolution is possible. And I, while I probably seemed like it, did not mean to imply that the change that is necessary was impossible. But, if nothing does change, and the state doesn&#39;t collapse or grow weaker as you believe it will inevitably do, you&#39;re totally fucked, and reform is your only possible option. I too, being one who follows Dialectic Materialism, believe that change is inevitable, but that change could also be for the worse...

I still believe that it is better to attempt at reforms today and succeed at some but fail at most, than to spend all your time preparing for the state to collapse and it not happening in which case basically you did nothing... Educating a few people is the only thing your movement can possibly accomplish right now, Reformists on the other hand, can educate along with working inside the current system to bring it down. Encouraging people to stay home and not vote does nothing more than getting a few more people to pull their pants down and get fucked in the ass by a big, wide, steel, stately dildo. Because, you do not know for a fact that the state will collapse, the only thing you can possibly know is that eventually change will come, and as I’ve stated before, that change could be better, or more likely it could result in a less opportunity for revolution than right now&#33;

[DaCuBaN]

I just thought I&#39;d best say - I feel an about-face coming on...

Screw reforms.... they have been proved not to work extensively

It&#39;s called the UN. Was this not instituted as a means to get all the warring nations of the world around one table?

If so it has been a catastrophic failure.

So henceforth, I abandon my previous viewpoint.

[redstar2000]

I still believe that it is better to attempt at reforms today and succeed at some but fail at most, than to spend all your time preparing for the state to collapse and it not happening in which case basically you did nothing...

Once you&#39;re handed your chips, you can bet them any way you like.

You win some and you lose some.


Educating a few people is the only thing your movement can possibly accomplish right now.

What did the abolitionists accomplish in the early years of their struggle?

For that matter, all that Marx and Engels ever did was "educate a few people".

Things start small...but if you&#39;re right, then they get a lot bigger.


Reformists on the other hand, can educate along with working inside the current system to bring it down.

Yes, reformists do "educate"...but the education is a very bad one. If they are successful, then they "educate" a generation to believe that capitalism can be "fixed". If their efforts are unsuccessful, then their generation "learns" demoralization and apathy.

A lose-lose proposition.


Encouraging people to stay home and not vote does nothing more than getting a few more people to pull their pants down and get fucked in the ass by a big, wide, steel, stately dildo.

A very graphic image...have you been watching videos from the American prisons in Iraq?

In any event, the "fucking" will take place whether or not people vote in bourgeois elections. Indeed, to borrow your image, voting is like "dropping your pants and bending over". It conveys an active willingness to be "fucked"...no matter who you vote for.


Because you do not know for a fact that the state will collapse, the only thing you can possibly know is that eventually change will come, and as I’ve stated before, that change could be better, or more likely it could result in a less opportunity for revolution than right now&#33;

IF Marx was right (and he&#39;s been right about many things), THEN the opportunities for successful proletarian revolution will appear in due course.

My chips are on Karl&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[pandora]

Originally posted by democratic&#045;[email protected] 2 2004, 11:50 PM

- Production would be for use and not for profit, while competition would be replaced by cooperation. The competitive free-for-all would be replaced by planning.
- Everyone would work for the community and contribute to the common good; society would be based on the principle, in Marx&#39;s words, of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
- Human nature would flourish, no longer distorted by poverty or greed, and a society would develop in which the goods of the world were freely shared and where everyone cared for each other.

Everything so far sounds all good and dandy for you believers in a fully socialist society, until now. All of this is taken on the assumption of one thing.

That human charcter is essentially good, and that the evils of poverty, crime, cruelty, ignorance and war, are NOT down to human nature. Well, im sorry to burst your bubble, but in reality, in the real world, humans are bad. And that is why a fully coialist system simply would not work.

Now thats out of the way, we have to consider what would work.
Interesting that you say now that&#39;s out of the way when this is the basis of the arguement between Rationalist and Enlightenment thinkers, who, no offense, are better philosophers, or at least better writers, than you are, in pertaining to the entire topic if whether people are good at heart and ethics.

Perhaps I have a hard time accepting your statement "Now thats [sp] out of the way" over several books of logical designed theoretically sound frameworks on ethics escribed by Immanuel Kant, call me silly, but I think he would have an easier time denouncing your reasoning than say Descartes, maybe I&#39;m wrong there but I don&#39;t think so. :lol:

Before you go throwing the baby out with the bathwater, maybe you should read more Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills.

Afterall you call yourself a democratic socialist, both the foundations of democracy and the foundations of socialism were based on the backbone of writers/philosophers Enlightenment thinkers who believed that human&#39;s basic nature was good and not of "sin"

It&#39;s interesting how just the assumption of original sin alone plunged the Western world into the dark ages. When only a small group of thinkers the philosopher kings are good, and everyone else is reacting through negative impulses you end up in a very dark world which excludes ideas of community and citizen, let alone comrade.

Perhaps what you feel is more along the lines of Kant and John Dewey who spoke of non-dualism. The non-dualistic approach, particularly of Dewey, was not that people are all bad or all good, or that people only work through desire. But that people did want to do good and help their community, but that they did not wish to be martyrs either, and nor should they be. That the individual needs to meet their basic needs, and that desires and also caring can cause them to develop intentions to do good.

I think the non-dualistic approach does accord with Kapital by Marx in that he recognizes that needs must be met, and that the commons must be organized in such a way that will meet those needs or greed and necessity will come out on top, it&#39;s lack of meeting people&#39;s needs both emotionally and physically which will actually collapse the feudalistic aspects of capitalism.

This is especially apparent in reading Hegel, he really does not see the monarchy as being something that humankind could do away with, but now we think that&#39;s ridiculous to the point when philosophers and satirists [often the same thing :P ]
try to establish the settings for throwbacks to monarchism, aka King George the II, the general public has a hard time believing that it is true.

Perhaps one day it will be the same for Capitalism :D