WRONG!

[Malvinas Argentinas]

Maybe it is my ignorance, but I found a lot issues thar are not taken into account when people defend certain ideology. In this case I`m going to "attack" communism or whatever. I don`t want to appear as the majority of the people here who argue against leftist ideologies, and seem to don`t know even what they believe, just fucking ignorants.

At the age of 16 I considered myself a communist, but as I grew up I found out questions that were not answered by the books(maybe just my ignorance).

Lets not focus on the past. when a socialist revolution takes place, I assume that lands, enterprises etc, are expropiated ( means of production to sum up). Obviously they are owned by peolple. This peolple hire other people so as to produce. So after the revolution, these properties will be managed by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Who would be the ruling class, and after a transition this one would disappear and communism finaly will happen. (Please don`t argue against, this simple explanation).


What will happen to all the people whose properties were expropiated?
I fully support the Cuban revolution for example, since the politic and economic power were controled only by a few, and or they war like Batista, or they were "latifundists"* as the fruit enterprises for example. But that was in Cuba and 45 years ago. Lets take for example Argentina nowadays, there are many social clases, and being part of any of those doesn`t make you necessarily a good or a bad person. One should be really stupid to believe all poor people are good and all rich people are bad. So what is the deal? The revolution expropiates the farm of a middle class man who is trully a good person. That is so unfair, considering that many people of the proletariat would not support a revolution if they owned a farm.
Communism, if im not wrong, says "The human history, is the history of the fight between clases" or something like that. And I agree with, It was always like that. But do you really think that all the people who owned means of production(hence, burgueasie) were opressors, where "bad" peolple? And do you really think that people who dindnt owned nothing were "good" people? I dont think so.
Me, by deep thinking, concluded that love is the solution to all problems. That is to say, the fight of the "good" people, no matter what social class you belong to, against the "bad" people( no matter if you are rich or poor).
The thing is I dont more believe in a revolution of the proletariat, but I believe in the revolution of love.

It is a bit vague, but i will wait at your response so as to continue developing my idea. Otherwise it will be kind of a monologue.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Malvinas Argentinas
Let's take for example Argentina nowadays, there are many social classes, and being part of any of those doesn't make you necessarily a good or a bad person.

The matter doesn't revolve around "good" or "bad" in the abstract.

There are only two ways to become rich in a capitalist society.

1. You are born rich; that means you are taught from childhood that you "are superior" by birth. Your parents teach you that, the servants teach you that, you go to elite schools that teach you that, etc.

You "can't help" but be "an arrogant bastard"...that's how you've been trained.

2. You become rich through your own efforts. In this situation, you must "demonstrate" your "superiority" to people who are already convinced of their own. Therefore, you must be "twice" as arrogant, ruthless, nasty, etc. as they are in order to convince them that you really "belong" among their numbers.

Beyond status, being rich is not about morality as such...it's about what you must do to get rich and stay rich. You must act like a bastard even if you're not...because if you don't, some real bastard will put you out of business.

In the capitalist "rat race", the rats always win.


One should be really stupid to believe all poor people are good and all rich people are bad.

All rich people are "bad"...and so are many poor people as well. Living in a capitalist society rewards "bad" behavior, no matter who does it.


Me, by deep thinking, concluded that love is the solution to all problems. That is to say, the fight of the "good" people, no matter what social class you belong to, against the "bad" people( no matter if you are rich or poor).

The thing is I don't more believe in a revolution of the proletariat, but I believe in the revolution of love.

Your faith in love will be thought by some to be quite admirable.

But you won't overthrow capitalism with it...ever.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Malvinas Argentinas]

""1. You are born rich; that means you are taught from childhood that you "are superior" by birth. Your parents teach you that, the servants teach you that, you go to elite schools that teach you that, etc.

You "can't help" but be "an arrogant bastard"...that's how you've been trained.""

Sory, but I think ernesto Guevara is a clear and easy example that refute this point.

And one dont need to be a such an extraordinary person like him, so as to demonstrate not to be such "arrogant bastard" as you supose high clase or midle people are.

""Your faith in love will be thought by some to be quite admirable.

But you won't overthrow capitalism with it...ever.""

I`m sory again, but I believe Ernesto Guevara again had a lot of love inside him.

I didnt want to say that a communist revolution excluded love, because in the end that the real objective: Justice, equalness, freedom, etc. But I think it is not a perfect theory, because conditions are always different, and for a midle class guy who has his little enterprise, and is not a "rat". They just want to feed their children, have a dignified life, etc. I totally agree with you, when we are talking about fucking rats, because they do exists.

If a revolution of love takes place, neccesarily many, if not the majority, of marxist thoughts will take place. But I strongly believe that some points are wrong.