For the last time...

[RedLenin]

For the last freaking time COMMUNISM HAS NO GOVERNMENT!!!!! North Korea, USSR, Cuba, etc. ARE/WERE NOT COMMUNIST!!! Communism is where the people self manage and goods are distributed freely based on the needs of all.

I am sick of seeing countless threads saying how communism is brutal dictatorship. SHUT UP! Read a freaking book! Start with the Communist Manifesto (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classics/marxengels/communistmanifesto.html) and ABC of Communist Anarchism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)

Sorry for this pretty useless post but it had to be said. :angry:

[Lamanov]

yeeey :ph34r:
thank you comrade cobra

this post should be repeated liki...umm... every 5 days or so :ph34r:

[RedAnarchist]

reactionaries dont tend to listen, though. They see only their safe Capitalism, where they can lose their conscience and empathy in a mass orgy of brands, fast food and ignorance.To them, Communism is something which will mean that they have to think altruistically for once.

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:38 PM
For the last freaking time COMMUNISM HAS NO GOVERNMENT!!!!! North Korea, USSR, Cuba, etc. ARE/WERE NOT COMMUNIST!!! Communism is where the people self manage and goods are distributed freely based on the needs of all.

I am sick of seeing countless threads saying how communism is brutal dictatorship. SHUT UP! Read a freaking book! Start with the Communist Manifesto (http://www.newyouth.com/archives/classics/marxengels/communistmanifesto.html) and ABC of Communist Anarchism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)

Sorry for this pretty useless post but it had to be said. :angry:
Communism

1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

That was from Dictionary.com.

You people are pathetic, like China, you've realized that you're wrong, and now you try to redefine your failed freedom hating ideology.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Find me a quote of Marx which understates your statement.

[New Tolerance]

Once again, the dictionary gives the most widely used definition, not necassarily the actual definition.

[the RIGHT=FREEDOM]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 4 2005, 11:26 PM
Once again, the dictionary gives the most widely used definition, not necassarily the actual definition.
However in this case it IS the actually definition. NO private industry in suppossed to exist under communism, the state is supposse to control everything and "equally" habd it out to the people.

This had ALWAYS been the definition of communism, you people are trying to redefine it.

[Questionauthority]

Communism

1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

That was from Dictionary.com.

You people are pathetic, like China, you've realized that you're wrong, and now you try to redefine your failed freedom hating ideology.

You stupid wank. Use a real dictionary as in the one I have in my hands.
I quote:
communism. a theory or condition of things according to which private property should be abolished, and all things held in common.

I repeat again: you stupid wank <_<

Freedom hating? So you also think you are a funny stupid wank? The freedom you like is the one where you are chained to a post, or staying with the majority and letting the state define freedom for you. Some people are too scared to swim alone.....

[New Tolerance]

However in this case it IS the actually definition. NO private industry in suppossed to exist under communism, the state is supposse to control everything and "equally" habd it out to the people.

Just because industries won&#39;t be private, doesn&#39;t mean it has to be controlled by some central government/authoritarian party. (meaning that the dictionary definition is incorrect/distorted)

You can just have the workers elect their managers.

[praxus]

You can just have the workers elect their managers.

Wow, that sounds like something familiar...

GOVERNMENT&#33;

[New Tolerance]

Wow, that sounds like something familiar...

GOVERNMENT&#33;

once again, If that sounds like a government then you ought to define government.

[praxus]

A person or people which govern. In other words sets the rules and enforces them.

Anarchy litteraly means "without a ruler". Unless you somehow deny the agreed upon definitions, you can come to no other conclusion then that "managers elected by the workers" is in fact a ruling body and is therefor not anarchy.

[New Tolerance]

Anarchy litterallys means "without a ruler". Unless you somehow deny the agreed upon definitions, you can come to know other conclusion that "managers elected by the workers" is in fact a ruling body and is therefor not anarchy.


This is where we run into technical problems of language. When I addressed the right=Freedom, I was referring to his implied version of soviet styled government which is some central body of control. In the case we are talking about there isn&#39;t one.

But I am not an anachrist, and in that respect I guess you could say that I disagree the others on this board that there should be zero government/organization if by no government they mean no organization (which I don&#39;t think is necassarily the case).

[Lamanov]

incorrect definition of communism :
- "1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."

ok, so lets go trough this.
1. system of government
- there is no government in communism. there is a simple logical explanation behind this : state is the instrument used and created by the higher class to ensure and enforce exploatation upon the lower-working class. [please dont claim that there is no exploatation in capitalism]
- there is no exploatation in communism because there is no private properity [especially over production, which is essential to existance of exploatation]

2. plans and controls the economy
- socialism [later - communism] is a system of planned production which satisfies the needs of every member of society. now, you dont need a government to ensure the existance and work of planned and rational economy, now do you.

3. often authoritarian party holds power
- democracy is the political essence of communism. people choose their representatives trough the electoral system organised by the workers, not by any party. &#39;authoritarian&#39; part comes and goes in the beggining, right after the revolution, comes as a political instrument of the proletariat to seize power and destroys the reactionist resistance, when economy and market are organised on the basis of free work and equal distribution and as the reactionist threat passes dictatorship seizes to exist.

4. higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people
- is there a problem here ?

THIS IS PURELY MARXIST CRITIC OF YOUR &#39;DEFINITION&#39; SO PLEASE DONT....

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 12:52 AM
A person or people which govern. In other words sets the rules and enforces them.

Anarchy litteraly means "without a ruler". Unless you somehow deny the agreed upon definitions, you can come to no other conclusion then that "managers elected by the workers" is in fact a ruling body and is therefor not anarchy.
Wrong.

A government is a tool to let few people govern the others, meaning that individuals have power over other individuals. In anarchism nobody has power over nobody. Thus Anarchism and government don&#39;t mix.

From the Cambridge University Dictionary:

government [Show phonetics]
group noun [C] (WRITTEN ABBREVIATION govt)
the group of people who officially control a country:

Hmmkay children. As you see in a society governed by a government a small selected group of people has political authority over others in a country.

In anarchism nobody rules nobody, nor are there countries.

And actually the literall meaning of An Archos is "without government&#39;.

You know this "AnArkY iZt GuvtMenT" argument starts to bore, it has been refuted countless times. Say something new, something daring, something with substance.

[crazyman]

The only reason you dissown other communist is so you can stay alive.
If you wouln&#39;t dissown them then your movement will have even less of a chance of happening.

[Latifa]

That is sorely incorrect. They weren&#39;t communist, and this has been screamed many a time.

[Outlaw289]

You guys dont think anarcho-communism will really work, will you?

You cant force equality&#33; Some people are just better at things than others. Success and profit are human values, and communism requires that the individual forego these. Communism is the anti-thesis of progress. Since the dawn of man, humanity has seeked the further the influence of the individual. From tribes, to monarchies, to republics and democracies, man has always sought to extend his individual influence and secure his personal freedom. Communism requires one reject these natural, personal values, and instead form a society based on collectivised group willpower and idealism. At best, communism can work on a local level. For true progress and the unhinderance of the individual, one must turn to the unknown ideal, which is capitalism. Communism forces all to join the group and question not its "progress".

Communism represents the poor, in both a good way and a bad way. In a good way, many modern leftists support the betterance of quality for the people who were truly screwed from birth and given less oppurtunity than others. In a bad way, while follwing the previous goal, communists seek to undermine the power of the individual and the motive of profit, the underlying goal of all significant human acheivement. When great medicines are made, the scientists start research FROM IDEALISM, but persevere through THE MOTIVE OF PROFIT. Money is a way to gauge worth, to gauge importance, usefulness, and efficiency in accordance to the society&#39;s values. Communsim rejects this . Rather than choosing the most effective way to perform an action, communism chooses a single way that works without seeking to improve, modernize, and invent. Communism secures the rights of all by killing the righs all. Yes, communism, theoretically would allow for the survival of all mankind&#39;s physical conditions, but at what price? The price is his soul. HIS will to succed, HIS will to follow HIS dreams, HIS chance to be HIS OWN MAN in society and to give his best contributions and to be rewarded justly for his ingenuity, be it economic, artistic, or otherwise useful. Communism, a dual philosphy that calls for the survival of the (bare) physical at the expense of the individual is a philosophy akin to the serpents of Biblical times. Enchanting in its ideology and idealism, its true purpose is the sinister usurpation of free will. While many on this forum seem glad to surrender themselves for the "greater good" (of which its existence is debateable, since by what right and what standard can one judge what is truly the best?), there are many in the world, myslef included, who will NOT stand idly by while the brainwashed masses of unskilled and ideological monsters seek to destroy our individuality.

Go on with your class struggle, your leftist revolution, your glorious eqaulity. Mao Zedong once said "political power grows out of the barrelof a gun." Go on, stage your revolution and show us the true face of leftism.


This son of a working man&#39;s immigrant family will show you political power.

[progressive thinker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:32 PM

Communism

1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

That was from Dictionary.com.

You people are pathetic, like China, you&#39;ve realized that you&#39;re wrong, and now you try to redefine your failed freedom hating ideology.

You stupid wank. Use a real dictionary as in the one I have in my hands.
I quote:
communism. a theory or condition of things according to which private property should be abolished, and all things held in common.

I repeat again: you stupid wank <_<

Freedom hating? So you also think you are a funny stupid wank? The freedom you like is the one where you are chained to a post, or staying with the majority and letting the state define freedom for you. Some people are too scared to swim alone.....
I think thats the exact speech that Lenin gave before they stormed the palace.

The "state" should never define freedom. Its only duty is to see that it is upheld for all of its members.

[Outlaw289]

bump so you cann all read my fabulous essay :P

[Taiga]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 4 2005, 11:21 PM
Communism

1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

That was from Dictionary.com.


How about Wikipedia?

Communism is a term that can refer to one of several things: a certain social system, an ideology which supports that system, or a political movement that wishes to implement that system.
As a social system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no private property and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned by the community as a whole, and all people enjoy equal social and economic status. Perhaps the best known principle of a communist society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
As an ideology, the word communism is a synonym for Marxism and its various derivatives (most notably Marxism-Leninism). Among other things, Marxism proposes the materialist conception of history; there are four stages of economic development: slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and communism. These stages are advanced through a dialectical process, refining society as history progresses. This refinement is driven by class struggle. Communism is the final refinement as it will result in one class.

"Communism" and "socialism"
Much confusion surrounds the words "communism" and "socialism", particularly in the United States. In terms of ideology and politics, communism is a sub-category of socialism. Communist ideology is a specific branch of socialist ideology and the communist movement is a specific branch of the larger socialist movement. A person who calls himself or herself a "communist" is a certain kind of socialist; in other words, all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two different things. For example, socialism can involve the existence of a state, while communism cannot. Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production, and sometimes also involves private ownership of some industries (for example in some forms of social democracy), while communism abolishes private ownership altogether.

Communism and "communist states"
As noted several times above, a communist system does not involve the existence of a state. Thus, the term "communist state" is an oxymoron. No country ever called itself a "communist state" and no government ever claimed to have established a communist system (in fact, no government can ever claim to have established a communist system, since the very existence of that government shows that the system is not communist).

Nevertheless, there have been a number of countries ruled by Communist Parties, and those countries were often called "communist states" by people living in other parts of the world. They called themselves socialist countries, and their ruling Communist Parties claimed to have established a socialist, democratic system, with the aim of eventually reaching communism. However, these countries were generally not seen as democratic by anyone except their leadership, and were not seen as socialistic by any (non-communist) socialists living outside their borders. In fact, most socialists strongly opposed them. Due to these reasons (as well as a number of others), the term "communist states" was invented to refer to those countries.

However, the term "communist state" is itself quite inappropriate. Besides the problem noted above (the fact that "communist state" is technically an oxymoron), there is one further issue with this term: there were (and are) many communists who opposed the governments of those countries and who argued that their ruling parties were communist in name only. The best known of these dissenting communists are probably the Trotskyists.

A better term for "communist states" would be "states ruled by communist parties". But that name is generally considered too long to be practical. Another term could be "Stalinist states", since all of them were governed by communist parties that were either clearly Stalinist themselves or could trace their roots back to Stalinism.

[New Tolerance]

You cant force equality&#33; Some people are just better at things than others. Success and profit are human values, and communism requires that the individual forego these. Communism is the anti-thesis of progress. Since the dawn of man, humanity has seeked the further the influence of the individual. From tribes, to monarchies, to republics and democracies, man has always sought to extend his individual influence and secure his personal freedom. Communism requires one reject these natural, personal values, and instead form a society based on collectivised group willpower and idealism. At best, communism can work on a local level. For true progress and the unhinderance of the individual, one must turn to the unknown ideal, which is capitalism. Communism forces all to join the group and question not its "progress".


Equality will be the result of what we do, not the process. Forcing equality is pointless, you can "force" equality in our current society, just by having tax hikes, what results is high tax "capitalism" (we are in not &#39;real&#39; capitalism by objectivist standards anyways), not communism.


Communism represents the poor, in both a good way and a bad way. In a good way, many modern leftists support the betterance of quality for the people who were truly screwed from birth and given less oppurtunity than others. In a bad way, while follwing the previous goal, communists seek to undermine the power of the individual and the motive of profit, the underlying goal of all significant human acheivement. When great medicines are made, the scientists start research FROM IDEALISM, but persevere through THE MOTIVE OF PROFIT. Money is a way to gauge worth, to gauge importance, usefulness, and efficiency in accordance to the society&#39;s values. Communsim rejects this . Rather than choosing the most effective way to perform an action, communism chooses a single way that works without seeking to improve, modernize, and invent. Communism secures the rights of all by killing the righs all. Yes, communism, theoretically would allow for the survival of all mankind&#39;s physical conditions, but at what price? The price is his soul. HIS will to succed, HIS will to follow HIS dreams, HIS chance to be HIS OWN MAN in society and to give his best contributions and to be rewarded justly for his ingenuity, be it economic, artistic, or otherwise useful. Communism, a dual philosphy that calls for the survival of the (bare) physical at the expense of the individual is a philosophy akin to the serpents of Biblical times. Enchanting in its ideology and idealism, its true purpose is the sinister usurpation of free will. While many on this forum seem glad to surrender themselves for the "greater good" (of which its existence is debateable, since by what right and what standard can one judge what is truly the best?), there are many in the world, myslef included, who will NOT stand idly by while the brainwashed masses of unskilled and ideological monsters seek to destroy our individuality.


Communism represents the exploited, not the poor, you can be fairly economically well off by by third world standards and still be exploited. Just what the heck is "poor"? Where does it start and where does it end?

There are already problematic statements with the first lines of your paragraphs, I can&#39;t address the rest of it until you clear this up.


Go on with your class struggle, your leftist revolution, your glorious eqaulity. Mao Zedong once said "political power grows out of the barrelof a gun." Go on, stage your revolution and show us the true face of leftism.

And Hitler was a right-winged nationalist and said a equal number of nasty things, or are you going to call him a leftist now?

[comrade_mufasa]

Go on with your class struggle, your leftist revolution, your glorious eqaulity. Mao Zedong once said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Go on, stage your revolution and show us the true face of leftism.
That is one of the most truthful statements ever made. More true then any made buy the founding fathers of the U&#036;.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by the [email protected] 4 2005, 11:21 PM
Communism

1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

That was from Dictionary.com.
"Eat shit&#33; Millions of flies can&#39;t be wrong&#33;"

"It has never mattered to me that thirty million people might think I&#39;m wrong. The number of people who thought Hitler was right did not make him right...
Why do you necessarily have to be wrong just because a few million people think you are?" - Frank Zappa


That "definition" is nothing but the "popular" definition of "communism". It&#39;s nothing like what most people here wants. Until you change you do a bit of research on what most people here wants, why, and how would such a society be like, all your arguments will be nothing but straw man fallacies.


You people are pathetic, like China,

Ad hominem fallacy


you&#39;ve realized that you&#39;re wrong, and now you try to redefine your failed freedom hating ideology.

Straw man fallacy...again

[ComradeRed]

reactionaries dont tend to listen, though. Reactionaries can&#39;t read&#33; Let alone listen.