Critical Questions

[Kweztion]

First of all, even though this the oppositional forum I do not wish to engage in polemic or
a senseless debate. It is better for everyone if peope stop pelting insults at each other.

In any case I came to this forum inquiring about information about Communism and even though I am still very new to the subject, I am not convinced. So here are some points to consider:

The question of history: It should be noted that I do not know much of the specific detail about the history of communism and the various regimes but from what I have garnered, in the case of Russia, that Lenin and Stalin ended up being dictators who squashed any opposition. Lenin waged ideological warfare against everyone who did not agree with his views both intellectually and physically. In addition what about his treatment of the peaseants, his "revolutionary tactics", etc. Stalin had his gulags, purges, and although his five year plan did help industrialize Russia it cost many lives.
Of course a critical thinker will always question history but this is admitted by many communists and anarchists. In fact I gathered much of this information from this website.

Theoretical issues: What is a "law" of history? I think the idea of history "progressing" and having certain "laws" can not be substantiated. There may be overall themes and similarities but history is far from "ordered" and not mutually exclusive. For example, the whole idea that humanity is "moving" from supersition to rationality and reason from the enlightenment can be questioned. While it is true that much dogma was overturned many religious thinkers from the past and even now utilize reasons and shown that many critiques have failed. Certain epistemological issues which one counters in disclipines as wide as sociology and history demand that things be understood in context and that the ideas of "irrationality" and "rationality" can be fuzzy at times. And Marxism and its ideas of laws and pinnacle of humanity thus can be severly criticized. People construct certain values, and ideas. There is nothing inherently perfect about the communist state.

Moving beyond Marxism: There is a difference between building of Marxist insights and being a outright Marxist. Marx did have an interesting analysis of capitialism but communism failed, point blank. In fact, nothing really began to materialize. Do people think that by touting slogans and collectivizing will abolish greed, envy, lust, desire, etc. Internal change is needed, and power no matter where it is corrupts. Of course this can be turned against certain corporate practices and "democracies" but that does not autmoatically necessitate a communist state.

Do not get me wrong I understand that there are many abuses which happen today and pure economic free-market determinism will not alleviate the worlds problems. Even many conservatives recognize that. Again a critique of captialism does not automatically mean that the current ideas of socialism and communism are the way out. When they were tried the failed visibily. Why can we not engage with past ideas, and see where the future leads us? It is naive to think that we contain the idea of a perfect state?

These are more like reflective questions and I would appreciate feedback. Feel free to criticize and poke holes wherever you find them.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Most commies will argue that the USSR was not really communist nor are any current communist states. This is mainly because they have not created the system that Marx himself had envisioned. After reading these forums I've come to realize that communists are so divided amongst themselves both in terms of ideology and history, that few will agree about any part of communism's history.

I look at history and these failed attempts at communism and see a system that is just impossible to implement. The reasons for that are.. well.. why the OI board exists ;) By no means do I consider capitalism to be the end-all perfect economic system. I fully recognize that capitalism has its flaws and problems. I also believe, however, that we as people will be able to fix these problems and basically work with what we've got. It's funny, but I've noticed that most capitalists willingly admit to the flaws in their system whereas communists won't be caught dead doing the same, lest they be branded as imperialist traitors.

You said it yourself here:


Do people think that by touting slogans and collectivizing will abolish greed, envy, lust, desire, etc. Internal change is needed, and power no matter where it is corrupts. Of course this can be turned against certain corporate practices and "democracies" but that does not autmoatically necessitate a communist state.

[NovelGentry]

To Wolnosc-Solidarnosc


Most commies will argue that the USSR was not really communist nor are any current communist states. This is mainly because they have not created the system that Marx himself had envisioned. After reading these forums I've come to realize that communists are so divided amongst themselves both in terms of ideology and history, that few will agree about any part of communism's history.

And yet strangely you would be hard pressed to find anyone on this board outside of the Restricted group who disagress with the USSR not being communist.


I look at history and these failed attempts at communism and see a system that is just impossible to implement. The reasons for that are.. well.. why the OI board exists

So why not tell us in your own words WHY the OI board exists... mind you, a message board cannot be communist, nor can any nation existing amongst capitalist nations. This is little different from the argument of "You should not be buying products in capitalism if you're a communist."

You overtly present that you are in opposition to communism, and then you wonder why in a system that hilights inequality and allows for it, you are unequal to a communist controlled/run website.

You'd also be hard pressed to find any communist on this board who says the bourgeoisie need not be oppressed in some form or another.

While I don't know for sure, I'm gonna assume you're something of a classic liberal here -- and like most of them, you cannot seem to grasp that communism is not about a tree hugging, world peace, total equality movement. We realize and are quite willing to make our hands red with the blood of the opposition, you cannot gain any amount of equality while allowing those who seek to ensure inequality the ability to do so. And they will fight with force, afterall, they have the "world" to lose; we must fight with force as well.


I also believe, however, that we as people will be able to fix these problems and basically work with what we've got. It's funny, but I've noticed that most capitalists willingly admit to the flaws in their system whereas communists won't be caught dead doing the same, lest they be branded as imperialist traitors.

You've probably not read OI enough. Let me also point out something, the flaws of capitalism which we present to capitalists are indeed flaws of capitalism. The supposed flaws of communism that they present to use are NOT flaws in communism, or even socialism for that matter, but usually the flaws of bolshevism, or far worse some random dictator/murderer who they were told by thier school system and the US government was "communist."

If there's a reason we're saying "It's not a problem in communism." It's probably because what you're proposing has NOTHING to do with communism.

To Kweztion


It should be noted that I do not know much of the specific detail about the history of communism and the various regimes but from what I have garnered, in the case of Russia, that Lenin and Stalin ended up being dictators who squashed any opposition.

I would hope they squashed any opposition, the question is of course whether it was personal opposition or opposition to communism. It would seem the embodiment of people like Stalin get the two confused at times. But to clarify something for you, the USSR was never communist, and communism doesn't have "regimes."


Of course a critical thinker will always question history but this is admitted by many communists and anarchists. In fact I gathered much of this information from this website.

Yes, aside from Leninists, most of us will admit the failures of Lenin and Stalin. I'll admit the failures of pretty much any leader to date of any nation under any socio-economic system. What I will not do is attribute the failures of those men as the failures of a system that they never implemented and may or may not have even represented.


And Marxism and its ideas of laws and pinnacle of humanity thus can be severly criticized. People construct certain values, and ideas.

As can the ideas of any system. However, what you quote as "laws" of history, is not something in particular that Marx upholds. Specifically what Marx applied was a very materially exact view of history. One that presents material growth and changes as the growth of society itself and thus as the overall theme behind "history." The reason you cannot debunk this idea without using superstition, is because we are all limited by material factors. If you believe in any sort of material reality, you cannot factor out materialism from history. What you can do, however, is say that material reality is not the driving force of history. That is of course a whole other argument.


There is nothing inherently perfect about the communist state.

I'm not sure anyone ever said there was.


Marx did have an interesting analysis of capitialism but communism failed, point blank. In fact, nothing really began to materialize.

In retrospect, capitalism is still a very young system. I don't think Marx, if alive today, could tell you or anyone when capitalism's time is up. You can always make estimates, but even by Marxist theory alone the general progression of capitalism is far from up. Where we stand is on something of a turning point. Capitalism has broken out of national borders, and other nations are being exposed to it's methods... I'd say you're looking at a few more decades until it's peak. How rapid it's decline will be is extremely questionable.


Do people think that by touting slogans and collectivizing will abolish greed, envy, lust, desire, etc. Internal change is needed, and power no matter where it is corrupts.

I don't know, ask them. If you want to know what I believe, it is that greed, envy, lust, desire, etc -- are all at the very least amplified extensively by the givern socio-economic system. In a system where the wealthiest people live in the nicest houses, drive the nicest cars, etc, it's difficult for anyone to say "I don't want to be wealthy" or for that matter "I don't want to marry a wealthy person." People will always desire things, but in the case of communism or even socialism, what you desire can achieve some sort of material reality if you choose to create it.

Capitalism seeks to maintain a system where only a few can have these things fulfilled -- if you've got the money under capitalism, you can usually buy what you desire, by chance that the person selling it would like that money, so they too can buy what they desire. This "works" insofar that our means of getting what we desire is the same means of other's getting what they desire. This alone amplifies the "greed" which surely you think is bestowed in us all. Why should I not try and keep what I can for myself? That is of course how I gain wealth and acquire the things I desire.

In a system where no one is a slave to money, what you desire must be manifested directly with labor power. If you choose to be lazy, it's doubtful anyone with the skill to create what you desire would ever want to help you, and since you're too lazy to learn and do it yourself, you'll never have what you desire. If on the contrary you're an extremely focused and goaled individual, you could easily create your own desires, and in the end share the benefits of your ideas, labor, etc, with the rest of society which has made that possible. Why would you do this? Well, you have little reason to hoard property, intellectual or otherwise, as your property gains you no "wealth" and thus it is not what fuels your ability to have what you desire.

You're flipping the system on it's head. In doing so, these aspects of human thought, if not all out destroyed, will be moot at best. Mind you, all of the things you named focus on "desire" in the end.


Again a critique of captialism does not automatically mean that the current ideas of socialism and communism are the way out.

It's not about a "way out." Regardless of whether you or I want socialism or communism, it's eventual realization, I believe, to be inevitable. I say this not because I want it (although I indeed do) but because I believe Marx was right when he broke history down into a material context. And since I believe he was right in doing so, I believe the conditions he presents are all "natural" in the events of material progression.

As for actually being a "way out" -- I believe strongly in that as well. I believe communism is the only means by which all men can obtain true freedom. Does this make my critique of capitalism valid? No, that's valid for it's own reasons, and communism as a free and equal society is valid for it's own reasons, regardless of whether capitalism "works" or can even be critiqued.


Why can we not engage with past ideas, and see where the future leads us? It is naive to think that we contain the idea of a perfect state?

While we're at it let's give feudalism another chance. Your statement here is somewhat meaningless. Capitalism was born out of the very same thing we feel communism will be born out of, class struggle. Capitalism IS a progression in human history, and communism will be a progression in human history as well. This is where you seem to misunderstand the ideas set down in Marxism to begin with. You seem to assume it's some sort of attempted theory at how the world could work, it is not, Marxism is an attempted theory on how the world DOES work, and you can believe it or not, but if Marx is right, communism is going to happen, and in much the same way capitalism came into existence, whether you want it to or not.

There is no perfect state, there is no perfect leader, and that's why communism is a stateless society. If there can be no perfect state, there should be no state. More, the state loses it's meaning when classes fail to exist.


These are more like reflective questions and I would appreciate feedback. Feel free to criticize and poke holes wherever you find them.

Much like everyone else here who directly believes it's an impossibility, you don't understand Marxism or communism in the least. Strangely, you admit to not knowing that much about communist history and theory, and yet you try to debunk it. How is it you can even feel your argument holds water if you're not even sure what you're arguing against?

The only thing I can derive out of your statements that holds any truth is: The USSR failed.

[Kweztion]

Interesting feedback.

Even though I think I was misunderstood, and I am still not at all convinced, I have some things to research and contemplate about.

[NovelGentry]

Even though I think I was misunderstood

If you clarify I'll be glad to give you a more on target response.


and I am still not at all convinced

That's ok, I don't ever expect to "convince" someone, they can only convince themselves, and they can only do so when they are presented with that material consciousness that allows them to do so.

This is again an outline of Marxist thinking. The fact alone that someone thinks someone can be "convinced" of something while remaining alienated from the truly convincing factors. You'd have a pretty difficult time convincing any rich man to give up his wealth too. You'd have a difficult time convincing any politician to give up political power. Why SHOULD they? There is no valid reason you can give that they can understand, materially, psychologically, etc. Because materially, psychologically, and whatever other sense it may apply, they are in a completely different world and coming from a completely different point of view.

The question is of course, what happens when some material condition changes for them. What happens when they're not so well off? Does seeing the other side of the equation actually come to them change what they're able to be "convinced" of... and if it does, is it you or I that does the convincing, or is it moreso something beyond anyone's control?


I have some things to research and contemplate about.

Indeed.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

NovelGentry, I made a critical error in my original post. It was supposed to be: "that is because THEY DID NOT create the system that Marx envisioned." The word "they" was referring to the Russian revolutionaries, not this website.

And I disagree that those people were not communists. If they had the chance to access this site they'd post the same stuff you do and spew the same philosophy. Everything they did, they did in the name of the revolution. By your logic the only people who can rightfully be called communists are those who have actually built a real communist system, ie. no one.

As for my other point, no I have not seen or met any communists come out and say "here are the problems with the system that we desire" or at least not any that wouldn't immediately afterfards be branded as imperialists.

At least you admit to the fact violence is necessary for the stablishment of your system. Though not all communists would agree with that. Regardless, to what extent will you have to continue using violence to maintain the system? Am I to understand that no outright opposition to the system would be allowed in a communist society?

[Kweztion]

To Novel Gentry and Wolnosc-Solidarnosc :

Let me clear up some misunderstanding:

I was not trying to "debunk" communism or socialism simply because it can not be negated per se. For example if person x formulates political theory b and it is not practical that does not mean it is "wrong" or "disproven", that simply just means that given the conditions it was not practical. The same thing goes with if the theory worked under a certain set of conditions. However given certain conditions a theory can be rational, but then again rationality is different than truth.

Secondly, I UNDERSTAND what you are saying about class struggle and the socio-economic forces that drive history. Marxist analysis does as you mentioned discuss the effects of the economy and how that translates into social reality. Hence, based on socio-economic changes we see a certain "progression" in history. And as Marxists argue and or hypothesize, certain aspects of capitalism will eventually cause it to be replaced...material conditions will bring about class struggle...indeed, who wants to be opressed?

However what I was questioning, is the idea of a meta-narrative or over-arching explanation of reality. In other words the issue is about Marxism as an interpretative device or is it an explaination of reality. This then as to do with the question, how much of Hegel influenced Marx. Both issues I am still learning about. The dialogue between Huey Newton and Erick Erickson is an interesting read becaues the former distinguishes between dialectical materialism and historical materialism.

A given set of facts can be interpreted in many ways based on the way we conceptualize the issue...this automatically then questions wether something is inveitable or not or for that matter necessary. And necessity in terms of cause and effect, does not even equal truth or betterment or progress.

By the way, both of you mentioned some interesting cons of captialism. Novel Gentry you spoke of desire in the capitalist system, and indeed your observation is correct. However, and this is what I was saying, and you can perhaps understand this in light of what is written above, that a conservative christian can make the same critique. What makes Marxists interesting is a sort of economic determinism.

By the way, these issues have been simplfied extremely, but this is so, because each of these issues requires books and articles (and thinkers get their ph.d's in such subjects!!) and simply can not be resolved on a message board, rather I was just trying to open dialogue and reflection.

Maybe I should go read more on the philosophy and theory section. lol.

[NovelGentry]

And I disagree that those people were not communists. If they had the chance to access this site they'd post the same stuff you do. Everything they did, they did in the name of the revolution. By your logic the only people who can rightfully be called communists are those who have actually built a real communist system, ie. no one.

Some might post the same stuff, others might post some of the same stuff I disagree with here. Strange how that works eh? Maybe you should take a look at some of my posts questioning the Leninist paradigm put fourth. There's little more that I would like than to talk to someone like Lenin, and ask him where the hell he came up with half the shit he did by adhering to Marxism. Hell, I'm willing to ask a lot of people that today.

You seem to make a pretty bold assumption based on my few sentences about my nature of classifying communists. In fact, it has nothing to do with whether they made communism or not, but their intentions. I'm not going to say one way or another whether they were communist -- in fact, I think it's difficult to say someone's not communist unless they blatantly display bourgeois sentiments etc. What I do, however, do, is question their intentions. I don't make claim to know their true intentions, nor do I think anyone should, but that doesn't stop me from questioning them.

Thus the proper statement is based on IF they are communist, which they may, or may not be. Just like I may, or may not be depending on your point of view.


As for my other point, no I have not seen or met any communists come out and say "here are the problems with the system that we desire" or at least not any that wouldn't immediately afterfards be branded as imperialists.

Well it's kinda difficult to see into the future. I can't exactly tell you what the problems of communism will be, I can make best guesses, but even those will be minimal. In short, the theory behind it makes some sense, if there is a problem that exists, it's unforseen by the majority, which is why no one comes out and says it, we simply can't see it or wrap our heads around it. But what happens is the capitalists and general anti-communists on this board present so-called problems with communism that are easily countered or examples clarified to show where communist theory overcomes these so called problems.

Until we see communism, determining it's real problems will be difficult. But until then, the weak arguments used to show why "communism steals our freedom" isn't holding much water.


At least you admit to the fact violence is necessary for the stablishment of your system. Though not all communists would agree with that.

Who here says otherwise? The URL for this website with some freeroaming capslocking is www.REVOLUTIONARYleft.com btw. Did you think the revolutionary part was a synonym for tea party?


Regardless, to what extent will you have to continue using violence to maintain the system?

It's not this clean cut. You have to look at a) who is starting this violence b) who is it started against and c) why?

Take the classic argument of "Stalin killed a bunch of farmers!!! OH THE HORROR!" -- yet when you look at the nature of these simple "farmers" you come to realize they were a very newly formed petty bourgeoisie on the rise and for that matter very much in control of the fate of the industrial worker and what could be considered Russia's post-NEP working class.

I'm sorry, but if you're a farmer and you're saying "No no, I want to sell this crop... unless I'm paid for it at this price you can't have it and your workers will starve," you're as bourgeois as the come and you ARE the enemy.

Thankfully this mentality cannot progress out of a peasant class, as we don't have one. There exists a reactionary faction of the working class, which of now is the majority in most advanced capitaist nations. But when this actually goes down you're gonna see that dwindle to a minority -- if it doesn't, this won't ever go down and all points are moot.

If you consider forced collectivization violent, then yes, there will be violence. Lands and factories will be turned over to the working class regardless of the wishes of their previous owners. I'd love to have them just "hand it over" -- but the fact is, they're not going to, and since things like the military and police force are currently designed to protect these interests build on private property you can be guaranteed there's gonna be violence against us. In this sense, we will fight so long as they do not give us what belongs to the working class. In the event there is remnants of those classes that still maintain control post-revolution, these too may see violence if they do indeed oppose the worker's movement.

There is no doubt revolution may look extremely similar to all out "civil war" -- the question is more aimed at post-revoltuionary society as I see it. The bigger problem here will be ideological differences between the left rather than left vs. right. To overcome this you need and existing platform for the working class to form this new society. Syndicalism provides one means to do this, the idea of a mass party with a vanguard also satisfies it. If you ask me both are flawed, and I do have ideas of my own, but they are much to long to get into here.

The short is you need a system which flows directly to workers democracy, and then in doing so, regardless of your specific political ideology or a party's political ideology, you are represented in that new formation, as it was completely democratic from the start.

Your question is akin to, what did the early US government do with British loyalists after the new government formed? And to be quite honest, I'm not completely sure of the answer, I can't picture them presenting any real issue until the war of 1812 -- but how many British loyalists do you know today in the US? I'm from the US (not sure about yourself) and I can't say I know a single one.

No one is masking the fight, the battle between the left and the right, the working class and the bourgeoisie.... there's no reason to. The history of such struggles, revolutionary or not is buried within the history of society as a whole, to pretend it won't happen is foolish, to pretend there won't be problems that arise later is also foolish (i.e. the way the US had civil war).

So what you do is look for the system that minimizes these ideological differences from breaking out into pure bloodshed. I can tell you for sure I don't see Anarchism doing this. Even in the event anarchist sentiment is strongest, it's smoothest ride is to piggy back the syndicalist method, and even still there will be strong pushes against it from the Marxist-Leninist side. While one might say it would be the same the other way around with Anarchists pushing against any Marxist-Leninist formation, traditionally it would seem that compromise is more fitting, even if it has never worked out. What I propose is something up the middle.


Am I to understand that no outright opposition to the system would be allowed in a communist society?

What do you mean outright opposition? Bombing worker's controlled factories? No, such things wouldn't be allowed. Some guy saying "I don't like communism"? laughable. Ignore communism for a moment, and pretend it doesn't exist. Your gripe is with socialism... the theoretical behind communism is that such issues are behind us, that there is no more class, and thus no more class opposition. While ideological opposition may arise ih a progressive or retrogressive form, there's no state to silence such a thing, only pure worker's democracy, and thus that's the only forum you can really take to actually promote change.

Socialism is at the heart of the issue, the transitional stage TO communism, when all the kinks are worked out. I propose no more freedom to the bourgeoisie than they have allowed us. Freedom of press? No. Freedom of speech? No. Now, stop and think about what I'm saying when I say the working class doesn't have these freedoms, and you'll begin to see how we limit the freedoms of the bourgeoisie under socialism.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Who here says otherwise? The URL for this website with some freeroaming capslocking is www.REVOLUTIONARYleft.com btw. Did you think the revolutionary part was a synonym for tea party?

In one of the other forums, I distinctly remember some members posting that non-violent means should be pursued during the revolution so as not to appear hostile to the people. I think RedStarOverChina was one of them.

And they have a point. Violence breeds vengeance and resentment particularly in the kind of revolution you are proposing.


If you consider forced collectivization violent, then yes, there will be violence. Lands and factories will be turned over to the working class regardless of the wishes of their previous owners. I'd love to have them just "hand it over" -- but the fact is, they're not going to, and since things like the military and police force are currently designed to protect these interests build on private property you can be guaranteed there's gonna be violence against us. In this sense, we will fight so long as they do not give us what belongs to the working class. In the event there is remnants of those classes that still maintain control post-revolution, these too may see violence if they do indeed oppose the worker's movement.

Machiavelli once said that the worst thing you can do is take away a person's property. Even the death of a person's family is easier to swallow than the loss of property. I couldn't agree more. People are greedy, I think we both agree on that. You take away private property and again you will breed resentment, unless of course you just kill everyone who holds private property. Well fuck that. People shouldn't have to die because they own a house.



Well it's kinda difficult to see into the future. I can't exactly tell you what the problems of communism will be, I can make best guesses, but even those will be minimal. In short, the theory behind it makes some sense, if there is a problem that exists, it's unforseen by the majority, which is why no one comes out and says it, we simply can't see it or wrap our heads around it.

Oh come on. If you wanted to you could theoretically come up with valid criticisms of your system. The key is WANTING to. Many of the threads on OI do in fact posit, I think, good questions about the practicability of socialism/communism. Though again, its difficult when dealing with people who themselves cannot agree on what their system should be like.


There is no doubt revolution may look extremely similar to all out "civil war" -- the question is more aimed at post-revoltuionary society as I see it. The bigger problem here will be ideological differences between the left rather than left vs. right.

Why do you say that? What will happen to all right-minded people? Right-minded workers? Dead, I assume. Or ostracized? Sounds like freedom denied to me.


Your gripe is with socialism... the theoretical behind communism is that such issues are behind us, that there is no more class, and thus no more class opposition. While ideological opposition may arise ih a progressive or retrogressive form, there's no state to silence such a thing, only pure worker's democracy, and thus that's the only forum you can really take to actually promote change.

By open opposition I meant me and my buddies going into the town square and start a campaign saying that we don't like the way things are run, that we prefer a system based on money. What would happen to me then? In way yes, my gripe may be behind socialism. I don't think we can ever come to a point where such issues are behind us. Otherwise, it sounds like completely brainwashed society to me. Is the goal of socialism really to model how people think? to change their nature? With no state to silence ideological opposition, wouldn't communism be a VERY fragile system?


Socialism is at the heart of the issue, the transitional stage TO communism, when all the kinks are worked out. I propose no more freedom to the bourgeoisie than they have allowed us. Freedom of press? No. Freedom of speech? No. Now, stop and think about what I'm saying when I say the working class doesn't have these freedoms, and you'll begin to see how we limit the freedoms of the bourgeoisie under socialism.

The fact that you are able to join a website like this one and post your thoughts without having the authorities suddenly busting down your door, beating you to an inch of your life and shipping you off to the middle of nowhere completely discredits that point. The fact that you are even able to access this site says a lot.

There does exist a left wing in modern society. Needless to say it's very important for any strong healthy democracy. I'd say leftist media is becoming all the more prominent and accessible nowadays. Hell, just look at the news section of this site. Workers have rights, can form unions, and go on strike. Granted, the system isn't perfect and granted, some countries have better working conditions and an easier reform process. So maybe you should focus your efforts on how to better the situation than attempt something that has historically, at least, proven to fail? I'm still not convinced that the tools don't already exist to better the position of the worker.

[NovelGentry]

I was not trying to "debunk" communism or socialism simply because it can not be negated per se. For example if person x formulates political theory b and it is not practical that does not mean it is "wrong" or "disproven", that simply just means that given the conditions it was not practical. The same thing goes with if the theory worked under a certain set of conditions. However given certain conditions a theory can be rational, but then again rationality is different than truth.

This is, however, the inherent misunderstanding you have. Marxism is NOT the theory of communism, to be quite clear Marx talks very little about actual communism. Where you try to debunk communism and/or socialism is when you cross the two. You take very subjective and moral arguments for/against communism and apply it to a very scientific and materialist theory of Marxism, and in essence try and throw out the whole thing as one and the same.

You may not think you're doing this, but I would argue you just don't realize it. You are not strictly saying "look at that, it didn't work, see the USSR!!!" but you're actually striking at the root of Marxist ideology by saying "that given the conditions it was not practical." You cascade the theoretical roots of communism (Marxism) with the subjective drive for communism. And by crossing the two, it makes it easier for one person to say "communism has failed" and "Marx was wrong" based on the actions and ideologies of people like Lenin.

But Marx never wanted it to be for here, or there, or then, or now... it wasn't about WHEN or WHERE it should really occur, quite the contrary it was about the WHYS and WHOS and WHAT.

It is a bad debunking, because what you're trying to do is push the ideas into a container of sorts by saying that communism was to be implemented here, at this time, and it failed. Or if you tried to implement it here, at that time, it would fail. These oversimplified statements may very well be the case, but it DEFIES what Marxism and I would argue communism are actually about.

Your statements, regardless of whether you're conscious of it, act as an attempt to debunk communism, but do so very poorly.

It's not a theory in physics which can be proven with particle motion regardless of place or time, and if the experiement fails it shows it's not a law. Quite the contrary, it seeks to extend itself over the history of man, as communism should not be seen as some separate ideology that man applies to their society, but as an inevitability of man in light of how their society progresses. Ideologically speaking the question comes down to whether or not you think Marx was right.

This is why statments like "communism is evil" or "communism doesn't work" are so hilarious to me What someone is really saying when they say such a thing is Marx was wrong. Which is all well and good, if you can tell me why Marx is wrong. But the arguments used to not debase Marx in any way, instead they are subjective instances of socio-political critique aimed at some unforseen moral issue.

One says, "Here is what is wrong with communism." While it may be fine to say such a thing, it does not show Marx is wrong. Regardless of whether or not anything is wrong with it, if you believe Marx, it's headed our way. Even if I did not support communism, it'd be difficult for me to ever bring myself to say it's not going to happen.

Of course the actual events; the actual revolution and change within society that pushes us there has yet to be seen; the single isolated attempts are ideological pushes from people who WANT communism above all, and thus the failure is not in Marxist thinking, his philosophy or theories, but in the failures of these people and their ideologies which thought you could "grow" communism so to speak outside of Marx's naturally scientific and material analyses. This is such a harsh truth, that any cursory examination of what Lenin did could be said to be inherently anti-Marxist (I can here the Leninists coming from a mile away already). But the minute you pretend capitalism can be skipped, forestall all it's problems and attempt to bypass them with some direct route to socialism, you've already broken the Marxist line. You may still be communist, but you sure as hell aren't Marxist.

You sum up my point quite clearly with your last sentence that it can be "rational" but not "truth." And that's the problem here. While Marx, and many Marxists believe communism to be rational, above all we believe Marxism to be TRUTH. Whether or not you want it to be rational, or whether or not you want to argue that it's rational is another question. IS IT TRUTH? That is the question. Is what Marx proposed the way the world works? Was he right about where capitalism's progressions will lead us? Is the next step communism? -- these are all valid questions to really talk about Marxism and for that matter Communism from an opposing point of view. But questions like "Why should people who own businesses be overthrown so that their hard work is turned over to their workers?"... these are moral questions, outside the scientific realm of Marxism, and beyond whether or not communism will happen.



Secondly, I UNDERSTAND what you are saying about class struggle and the socio-economic forces that drive history. Marxist analysis does as you mentioned discuss the effects of the economy and how that translates into social reality. Hence, based on socio-economic changes we see a certain "progression" in history. And as Marxists argue and or hypothesize, certain aspects of capitalism will eventually cause it to be replaced...material conditions will bring about class struggle...indeed, who wants to be opressed?

You start off good here, you make it all scientific about the progression through economic (material reality) into social reality, and then you destroy that really nice line of thought with a question outside of the materialist realm. You ask "who wants to be oppressed?" Unfortunately, that is one of those moral questions that borders on "Why should people be oppressed?" It's only value is purely rhetorical, the proper question is "What makes us realize we're being oppressed?" and when we do "What happens because of that?" -- not, "what do you want to do because of it." But what actually happens?

If you are indeed asking me in light of materialist reasoning, the most reasonable answer I can give with any subjective clause from my own point of view and feelings on morality is, no one wants to be oppressed.


However what I was questioning, is the idea of a meta-narrative or over-arching explanation of reality. In other words the issue is about Marxism as an interpretative device or is it an explaination of reality. This then as to do with the question, how much of Hegel influenced Marx. Both issues I am still learning about. The dialogue between Huey Newton and Erick Erickson is an interesting read becaues the former distinguishes between dialectical materialism and historical materialism.

A given set of facts can be interpreted in many ways based on the way we conceptualize the issue...this automatically then questions wether something is inveitable or not or for that matter necessary. And necessity in terms of cause and effect, does not even equal truth or betterment or progress.

Progress, not necessarily, truth, yes. It is in fact the root idea behind what constitutes truth. If it is inevitable, it is undeniable, if it's cause shows up in effect, we know the effect to be a matter of truth.

But you have brought out a very interesting point here that is 100% true. It doesn't equal progress, at least no in moral terms. If we are trying to progress society in a moral aspect, then there are arguably better ways to do it than bloody revolution -- I suppose the question is whether or not they would work.

The funny thing about dialectics is that it doesn't hold "wrong" or "right" -- it does hold progress, but not in the sense that progress is betterment, but only in the sense that something is progressing, that the two opposing forces have pushed and progressed into a single new thesis which then encounters it's own anti-thesis, forever PROGRESSING towards a center.

I'm not dialectical wizard, and personally I ignore Hegel's influence on Marx for the most part -- I don't think Marx needed it in the least, and it's arguable whether or not it was even on his mind in his later works. Marx's statements hold water for me regardless of dialectics historical or material. You take a single sentence and it simply falls in place with what happened, what is happening, and seemingly what will happen even now, nearly 200 years later.


However, and this is what I was saying, and you can perhaps understand this in light of what is written above, that a conservative christian can make the same critique. What makes Marxists interesting is a sort of economic determinism.

To indulge this point a minor bit I will say that I think this is completely off key. What makes Marxists interesting is determinism towards material consciousness. I think to say that any other determinism exists above that is foolish. Any determinism outside of that is completely subjective.... if indeed you are interested in economics you might have a certain amount of economic determinism. I'm interested in a lot of things, thus I have a lot of determinism in ALL aspects of Marxism, including some of the moral arguments that grow out of it. But to adhere to Marxism, it's difficult to say any singular determinism is required above that of material consciousness, of course in a way that it coincides with Marx's "predictions" based on his material consciousness.

Materialism is nothing new, but I think it's safe to say above all Marx defined historical materialism, if anything, at least for the period in which capitalism began and will end. Which is something of a feat in itself, as his foresight based on that material consciousness can still apply today, once again, nearly 200 years later.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Mind you, I do not believe that capitalism will last forever. Marx was a philosopher like any other, and like most philospohers there were grains of truth in what he said. No capitalism will not last forever, though it will surely outlast my lifetime. However, when it does fall, I don't believe it will change into socialism/communism for reasons previously stated.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Wolnosc-[email protected] 22 2005, 10:46 PM
I look at history and these failed attempts at communism . . .

Meanwhile, Capitalism has worked flawlessly . . . and their certainly weren't any fuckups in the leadup to it.

Geeze, memory hole?


The fact that you are able to join a website like this one and post your thoughts without having the authorities suddenly busting down your door, beating you to an inch of your life and shipping you off to the middle of nowhere completely discredits that point. The fact that you are even able to access this site says a lot.

Again, memory hole? When threatened, has any capitalist state behaved differently? Example? Speaking as somebody who has been arrested for leftist activity . . .

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Capitalism is not flawless, I have said this repeatedly. Capitalism exists, it is a reality, which cannot be said for communism.

Mr. Gentry said that the bourguois class does not give the workers any voice. This site is evidence to the contrary.

I am curious, however, as to the story of your arrest.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

a) After my trial comrade, after my trial.

b) Certainly, capitalism exists, but, if we consider the history of its existence, and in particular its birth, there seems little reason to dismiss the posibility of communism arising in a similar, though distinct, manner.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2005, 05:04 AM
a) After my trial comrade, after my trial.

Sweet merciful... What the hell did you do? You're from Quebec right?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Discussion for PM, if you'd like - we shouldn't clog up this topic with our conversation. In fact, I think a mod should delete this post, and yrs immediately preceding it.

[NovelGentry]

In one of the other forums, I distinctly remember some members posting that non-violent means should be pursued during the revolution so as not to appear hostile to the people. I think RedStarOverChina was one of them.

Every post I've ever seen talking about peaceful change has been met with ridicule and assertion of the opposite.


And they have a point. Violence breeds vengeance and resentment particularly in the kind of revolution you are proposing.

It'll be pretty tough for even the richest of the bourgeoisie to have any vengence if they're 6 feet under. This is not, beat up the capitalist and take his land. This is shoot them dead and raid their factories.

You apparently feel there will be some resentment within the surviving proletariat majority itself, the ones who have control. Enough to make them backstab the whole revolution and attempt a counter revolution -- but why? Why regress the system?

Counter-revolution serves those who benefitted before revolution, that is, those who controled the means of production and were made wealthy from it. It does not serve as a simple means to "get back" at the communists. Why would any working class person in their right mind want to revert back to a society where they were exploited, specifically AFTER people began becoming conscious of this exploitation?


Machiavelli once said that the worst thing you can do is take away a person's property. Even the death of a person's family is easier to swallow than the loss of property. I couldn't agree more.

What property do you speak of? Have you been reading "This Godless Communist" agian? This isn't about ripping working class people out of their homes and sending them 1000 miles away because we need workers in a coal mine, and they can visit their families on the weekend. This is take back our property, this is ALL about property, and all about getting OUR property back. It is not we who are taking property, it is the bourgeoisie who has taken it from us -- but in taking it back we realize the nature of this property and our class consciouness, which is indeed necessary to oppose the bourgeoisie on such a level, is what shows us the nature of private property as a social condition. We do not abandon our personal right to homes, computers, air conditioners, whateve, instead we look to destroy the social condition which presents property in the hands of a single individual to act as a means to subjugate our labor for it's use or offspring products.


People are greedy, I think we both agree on that.

I think we agree on far less than you think.


You take away private property and again you will breed resentment, unless of course you just kill everyone who holds private property. Well fuck that. People shouldn't have to die because they own a house.

Indeed you have a warped conception of who has private property. You think you own your house? Well... I don't know, maybe you do. But you think the working class owns their houses? You think they even own the clothes on their back?

You need to rethink the nature of private property, and realize for a moment that the working class's "ownership" is little more than a temporary lease, on the condition that we continue working. We are not in a position to have the freedom and right of private property.


Oh come on. If you wanted to you could theoretically come up with valid criticisms of your system. The key is WANTING to. Many of the threads on OI do in fact posit, I think, good questions about the practicability of socialism/communism. Though again, its difficult when dealing with people who themselves cannot agree on what their system should be like.

You have a very strange confusion on this issue. Even Anarchists will agree with Communists on what the end result is, what is not agreed on is the method, and socialism is part of the Communist method that Anarchists disagree with. The result is not socialism, that is merely a means. We do not disagree on what the system will be like, we disagree on how we progress to that system from current society. There is a HUGE and aching different that you do not realize.

What you seek is flaws in socialism, not in communism. Indeed flaws in socialism will depend on which communists you talk to. Leninists will fall one way while someone like myself will fall another. Alas, the problems of Leninism have already presented themselves, I cannot say the same about my ideas for socialism. As far as the problems of communism, same answer as before.

The majority of criticism from OI comes from people who really don't understand what communism is and refuse to learn. For example "How will you stop the state from oppressing the people under communism?" answer: "There is no state in communism."

Yet they CONTINUE to badger us with such questions.


Why do you say that? What will happen to all right-minded people? Right-minded workers? Dead, I assume. Or ostracized? Sounds like freedom denied to me.

I do not presume any large amount, if any of the working class will maintain right wing ideology in the wake of capitalism. Not because of fear, simply because of the position the working class is put in. You're talking about people rising up and killing the people who oppress them, why would someone in such a position allign their thinking to the same style of those people who oppressed them?


By open opposition I meant me and my buddies going into the town square and start a campaign saying that we don't like the way things are run, that we prefer a system based on money. What would happen to me then?

Under communism? You'd probably be laughed at, but those, if any who remember what money was like outside of a history book. Under socialism? I'd suggest debating, proposing, and voting on it with your commune -- doubt it would pass, but you could give it a shot. Some questions you might hear:

"What's wrong with the current credit system we have? It's more simplified than money, no reason to carry around a bunch of paper representation of labor time when it's all electronically done."


In way yes, my gripe may be behind socialism. I don't think we can ever come to a point where such issues are behind us. Otherwise, it sounds like completely brainwashed society to me. Is the goal of socialism really to model how people think? to change their nature? With no state to silence ideological opposition, wouldn't communism be a VERY fragile system?

Follow the line:

capitalism -> revolution -> post-revolutionary society -> socialism -> communism

If you live through the probably 200+ years of socialism to see true communism you'll have forgotten long ago that you're even moving to communism. There's not gonna be a banner the day the vote to dissolve the administrative goes through that says "Congratulations, We're now communist!"

Be realistic for a moment. I don't here anyone griping that we gave up the gold standard. When's the last time you were pissed that they got rid of $2 bill? Are you longing for British colonialism? Begging for the day that King George wants to tax you without giving you representation? Want the actual gold coins back? Maybe you can trade in tea? The minute you realize how foolish these abstractions are and how much no one really cares about them, you'll begin to see how foolish a lot of your ideas are.

As far as changing the nature of people... I don't think you or anyone can profess a true understanding of hte nature of every human being. Particularly when according to you, I would be greedy and envious and lustful, etc -- yet somehow I fight for a system that looks towards a system that provides equality and well being towards the whole of society at the risk of my own life and labor power.

You don't need to change the nature of man, the nature of man is to survive and procreate. Changing the nurture of man comes naturally.


The fact that you are able to join a website like this one and post your thoughts without having the authorities suddenly busting down your door, beating you to an inch of your life and shipping you off to the middle of nowhere completely discredits that point. The fact that you are even able to access this site says a lot.

*GASP* -- so as long as you're not beaten within an inch of your life for saying *certain* things, you have free speech. So what happens if you start at 1500 Penn Ave, and march slowly towards 1600 Penn Ave in Washington DC yelling "I'm gonna kill Bush!" With the full intention of chopping down a small bush with the machetti that's in your hand once you get to 1550 Penn Ave.

The point wasn't that speech is so far restricted that we cannot share political ideas, the point was that we don't have free speech, or free press. And the bourgeoisie will have the same limitations. They are not to be beaten within an inch of their life for saying "I want money."

But when's the last time you got a heavily communist/anti-capitalist article posted in The New York Times? Good, well don't expect their trash and propaganda to be printed by our newspapers either. How many communists you see on crossfire debating whether capitalism should exist or not? Don't expect to hear them on our news programs and media either. For every person under capitalism who writes about their shitty job in their blog, we will eject from our factories and workplaces the bourgeoisie who posts on his website "I hate the idea of workers democracy, if I was boss... blah blah blah."

They will be afforded NO freedoms that the working class is currently not afforded. So much like us, they will be pushed aside to fringe internet message boards and small time communities -- and may whatever God they may or may not believe in hear them, because the working class of the world will not.

It doesn't take a lot to grasp the idea of brotherhood, working class unity, and comradery -- in fact, many books documenting first hand accounts of socialist revolutions would teach you thing or two about how equal man can be without letting greed and envy get in the way. Your "human nature" argument is shit in light of any decently respectable human being.


There does exist a left wing in modern society. Needless to say it's very important for any strong healthy democracy. I'd say leftist media is becoming all the more prominent and accessible nowadays. Hell, just look at the news section of this site.

All well and good, the bourgeoisie can have their little Bourgeoisie Bosses Party websites too. And there won't "exist a right wing in modern society."


Workers have rights, can form unions, and go on strike.

Give me a break, this is some kind of joke right? "Go on strike, get some better pay, be exploited less." Your problem is you don't understand the fundamentals, you don't see that workers are exploited, you don't understand the social dynamic of private property, and you can't wrap your head, for one instance, around what we want. This isn't about workers rights and better wage, this is about ending the subjugation of one man's labor by another man.


Granted, the system isn't perfect and granted, some countries have better working conditions and an easier reform process.

So on top of not being what we're fighting for, it's a shafty system with it's own forms of oppression like the Taft Hartley Act.


So maybe you should focus your efforts on how to better the situation than attempt something that has historically, at least, proven to fail? I'm still not convinced that the tools don't already exist to better the position of the worker.

Bettering the position of the worker is for bourgeois liberals who do it for little more reason than to ensure their position as political careerists. You certainly misunderstand what we want, so it might help you to read a thing or two about what we actually stand for.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Just for the record, I'm inclined to think that Novel Gentry's "kill 'em all and let their gods sort them out," approach to revolution is a little o'er th' top. The actual process of revolution - of asserting our right to the means of production which we possess anyway - need not be violent, but that violence is a fact of the capitalist class which will inevitably strike back when they find their hegemony threatened.

Yup.

[NovelGentry]

Just for the record, I'm inclined to think that Novel Gentry's "kill 'em all and let their gods sort them out," approach to revolution is a little o'er th' top. The actual process of revolution - of asserting our right to the means of production which we possess anyway - need not be violent, but that violence is a fact of the capitalist class which will inevitably strike back when they find their hegemony threatened.

If I presented it any other way I apologize, I thought that was clarified when I spoke of how they would use the police and military, any time before that I thought it was realized -- As any one should realize they're not just going to give us the land and factories and tech parks, etc.

But indeed, the violence I present is a fundamental aspect of the revolution in that it will be the means, not simply for the bloodlust of the worker, but because it is the ONLY means by which to force the bourgeoisie to give up their control.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:33 AM

Just for the record, I'm inclined to think that Novel Gentry's "kill 'em all and let their gods sort them out," approach to revolution is a little o'er th' top. The actual process of revolution - of asserting our right to the means of production which we possess anyway - need not be violent, but that violence is a fact of the capitalist class which will inevitably strike back when they find their hegemony threatened.

If I presented it any other way I apologize, I thought that was clarified when I spoke of how they would use the police and military, any time before that I thought it was realized -- As any one should realize they're not just going to give us the land and factories and tech parks, etc.

But indeed, the violence I present is a fundamental aspect of the revolution in that it will be the means, not simply for the bloodlust of the worker, but because it is the ONLY means by which to force the bourgeoisie to give up their control.

Agreed.
(Though part of me still hopes my boss will run away to Antarctica or something.)

[t_wolves_fan]

The question of history: It should be noted that I do not know much of the specific detail about the history of communism and the various regimes but from what I have garnered, in the case of Russia, that Lenin and Stalin ended up being dictators who squashed any opposition. Lenin waged ideological warfare against everyone who did not agree with his views both intellectually and physically.

Here you will run into another leap of logic of which members of this board are fond.

The USSR and China were not Communist because, well, they just weren't. The actions of entire states and governments, who just happened to use the same language and symbols as many on this board, were nowhere near defining what communism is. Never mind that every state that has called itself "communist" has been brutally oppressive, it's just not "communism", so can't be used to argue against communism.

However, when it comes to capitalism, any action by any individual working within the system defines it, no matter how rare. For instance, when a couple in Australia offers to sell their baby's name on E-bay, that defines capitalism. Never mind that 99.5% of capitalists think such a practice is immoral and absurd, that action alone defines capitalism and may be used to argue against capitalsm.

So, overwhelming evidence that communism leads to oppression is not allowed, or ignored; but single, rare harmful actions by capitalists are key evidence about how bad capitalism is.

When you're completely void of any intellectual honesty, it makes perfect sense.

:lol:

[NovelGentry]

If you can tell me WHY Russia and China are examples of communism, you might have a chance. But I have a feeling your answer would be something along the lines of:

"They were brutal oppressive regimes that centralized power in the hands of dictators who killed a bunch of people."

The question isn't whether their leaders were communist, the question is was the system communism. There's a fair amount of communists around, as you can see on this board and probably others around the internet, yet we don't call this system communism just cause of that.

I find it funny you're willing to classify any politician from the left or the right, based on "what language they use" -- they're politicians, they use whatever language you want to hear.

But the minute you listen to what most of us here are actually promoting, worker's democracy, the destruction of the state as classless society forms, etc...etc... you start to realize it's a far cry from what you've seen in all these examples. And yet, you STILL ignore the living examples of socialized production and consumption in the open source world, and the historical ones which actually displayed true workers democracy.

The minute we point you at a perfectly valid example, which yes, STILL isn't communism, but represents what we're about a whole lot more, you ignore it and fall back on the likes of the USSR. Unless you're willing to understand what communism actually is, you're never going to be in a position to present proper examples of successes OR failures of communism.

Furthermore, this point has already been addressed multiple times:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33113 -- my own post, for one.

[t_wolves_fan]

If you can tell me WHY Russia and China are examples of communism, you might have a chance. But I have a feeling your answer would be something along the lines of:

"They were brutal oppressive regimes that centralized power in the hands of dictators who killed a bunch of people.

The question isn't whether their leaders were communist, the question is was the system communism. There's a fair amount of communists around, as you can see on this board and probably others around the internet, yet we don't call this system communism just cause of that."

Frankly, yes. They were communist systems. I say that because everything I have seen on this board indicates that the outcome of a "communist" revolution would be brutal oppression of the people by a group of party leaders just as in those states.

Most on this board call themselves communist. If you want to debate which members are "pure" and which are "true" communist then I can't really have that debate because I'm stuck in this forum where you all agree to disagree with us.

Take for instance the overwhelming view on this board that religion would probably not be tolerated in your "stateless" communist society. You have members advocating forced atheism, murder of priests, destruction of religious buildings or symbols, prohibition of religious expression, and prohibition against parents instilling religion in their children.

Would you like to tell me how any of that happens without enforcement by a state? The only way it happens without enforcement by a state is if you kill people of religious faith during your glorious revolution. Killing non-believers on that massive a scale isn't a revolution, it's conquest.

Then you have the folks telling us that in our stateless communist society, people "may have all that they need" and that "needs will be decided upon by individuals", while at the same time informing me that some things really are needed and some really are not. Well, pray tell, who decides what I really "need" if I don't really "need" the things I say I need? Do you follow me there? You can't simultaneously say people will have their basic "needs" taken care of, that people may decide what they "need", and that one thing or another isn't really a "need" without having a third party, with power, deciding what goods or services and in what quantities constitute "needs" and what goods or services or quantities exceed "need". The only way everyone comes to agreement on what constitutes a "need" is if by some miracle everyone can reach consensus on everything. And we're talking everything here, as in every product and service imaginable.

Would you like to attempt to reach global consensus on what products and how much of those products constitutes a "need"?

The answer is you can't. The world is not going to magically agree that this list of products are all "needs" and in this quantity. It's impossible. So, the most likely outcome is that you folks, the leaders of your glorious revolution, are going to do what your attitude suggests you'd do: youre going to tell us what products and in what quantities meet our needs and that the rest shall be labeled "wants". The results will be 1>You're now in power, constituting a government by defining our needs for us, 2>A black market will develop because literally nobody will be satisfied with what you've determined we should have, and most importantly, like in China and the Soviet Union, 3>You're going to refuse to relinquish control, either because the incredible power you now have is going to corrupt you or because you feel the need to "finish the job" on the revolution, which of course will never actually be finished to your satisfaction.

Hence, the Soviet Union and China and all the rest are perfect examples of communism - a revolution of the "workers" that never seemed to end because the people in charge of setting it up by some miracle could never bring themselves to declare the revolution a success and step down from power.

Think about it. You think if NoXiom or some of the other anti-religionists are going to step down from power so long as there is evidence that people are still practicing religion? No, he's going to stay in power and continue to persecute the religious until religion is wiped out to his satisfaction, which by gauging the world's population of religious believers would be never. Along the way they'll probably wipe out even the insiders who get in their way.

Does that sound familiar? Why hasn't Castro stepped down yet? From the pro-Cuba rhetoric we see on this site, the revolution seems like it ought to be complete by now.


But the minute you listen to what most of us here are actually promoting, worker's democracy, the destruction of the state as classless society forms, etc...etc... you start to realize it's a far cry from what you've seen in all these examples. And yet, you STILL ignore the living examples of socialized production and consumption in the open source world, and the historical ones which actually displayed true workers democracy.

I read what you are promoting, and in a perfect world I would be all for it. But then I am told that everything would be community property and that if I wanted one of my own or more of them, I'm "shit out of luck". I read that the things I think I need may, according to the revolution's leaders, not "really" be a need. Hmmm...as I consider supporting you do I really want to trust a group of people who seem to take it upon themselves to tell me what I need and that if I think I need more, I'm SOL?

Better yet, as I consider my options, do I think I could go for supporting such an open-minded and liberty-driven movement whose adherents support murdering clergy and prohibiting me from teaching values to my own children?


The minute we point you at a perfectly valid example, which yes, STILL isn't communism, but represents what we're about a whole lot more, you ignore it and fall back on the likes of the USSR. Unless you're willing to understand what communism actually is, you're never going to be in a position to present proper examples of successes OR failures of communism.

I haven't seen you point out a valid working example of communism that exists in the present day to me. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else.

I understand exactly what communism is in theory. I see no evidence that the people on this board would allow it to happen. People who are full of rage and anger are usually not the types who allow democratic or individual decisions to be made.

[NovelGentry]

Frankly, yes. They were communist systems. I say that because everything I have seen on this board indicates that the outcome of a "communist" revolution would be brutal oppression of the people by a group of party leaders just as in those states.

Well we all know where your ignorance comes from, apparently you can't read very well. The outcome of a communist revolution, is NOT communism, at least not directly. It is socialism, at least by the standards of any communist who believes in the transitional state.

If you want to call them socialist, that's another question. But I would ask you to look at the nature of their revolutions and determine whether or not the revolutons themselves can even be considered "communist revolution." You can have all the party strength and party figures you want saying "We're communists." But the nature of the revolution is very much embedded in the society and far out of the reach of man -- It's a material factor (as any real marxist would tell you).

You cannot "escape" capitalism, you cannot avoid it's term, you do not pass go. The minute you mention a backwards nation like the USSR or China the first thing that should be popping into your mind, if you've actually even bothered to read the majority of posts on this board, is, "In what ways did they actually progress towards socialism." You've got a strong capability in selective reading if you're not forced to ask such questions after reading the majority of posts here. But I have no doubt that is the case, you seem very much to only pick out the parts you want to hear.


Most on this board call themselves communist. If you want to debate which members are "pure" and which are "true" communist then I can't really have that debate because I'm stuck in this forum where you all agree to disagree with us.

The question of a "pure" or "true" communist is a funny one. Indeed I use these terms, I'm pretty sure I just used one in my last response to your previous statements. Don't confuse "true communist" with "true marxist" etc. There are a number of ideologies that embody communism, where they differ is primarily on how to get there and whether or not things are even really possible.

Your problem is that you don't see a difference between something actually being communism and being lead by communists. In order for a system to be communist, certain things have to be true, but we've discussed this before, you just turn your selective reading lights off and pretend what I said doesn't apply.

Also, however, in order for someone to be communist certain things have to apply. Where you go way off is in assuming that the communist nature of an individual, party, union, or organization automatically makes that nation communist. I think I've actually stated this before, but not directly to you, someone who had the same time of logic. What you claim is the equivalent of saying that when a Republican gets into the white house, or republicans control the senate, the US is no longer democratic, but republican -- and then when a democrat gets in it would be democratic.

It's a very foolish statement. While these people sway the direction of a country, the overall system changes in no drastic way to remove the existing words we can use to describe it. Using this logic you can relate all the flaws in the attempts at a system, to the system itself. It works out good for you, because it makes your argument simple, but it's a weak argument.

Surely the slaves must have been an aspect of "democracy" if what you say is true. No doubt every democracy has slaves! It's funny you could even call the US a democracy today since we abolished slavery, and the history of the US obviously shows us that democracies have slaves -- Stupid, right? But it's the same logic you use.

For you there is no point where a system can have communist leaders, attempting socialism for the eventual end of communism, without the system actually being communist.


Take for instance the overwhelming view on this board that religion would probably not be tolerated in your "stateless" communist society. You have members advocating forced atheism, murder of priests, destruction of religious buildings or symbols, prohibition of religious expression, and prohibition against parents instilling religion in their children.

You mash all this into one -- another one of your big problems. You don't differentiate between revolution, socialism, and communism. You pull it all into one and see it happening in something of a few decades. You'd be lucky to find a religious person to oppress under communism. After possibly centuries of socialism in each nation I doubt you'd be able to find one.

As far as the random murdering of preiests and forced atheism. This is all a bit foolish -- you cannot FORCE atheism on someone. Belief in God is just that, a belief -- they might play like an atheist in public, but the minute they get home they prey to God and thank them for his daily bounty. And this is where we want it. Religion is a private matter, regardless of what the Christian right would like to tell you, and regardless of how much you may think everyone should believe in God.

It is such a private matter that indeed no parent should be able to instill it into their child -- on the contrary, a child should be able to think on their own, and grow up free from any environment that forces any personal ideology on them, including the communist ideology.

What we argue is that society would have a direct role in raising children under communism, and probably late term socialism. Whether you'd like to agree or not, society already does play a major role in raising children, or at least instilling ideas and these "values" you talk about in them. But it does so in a very cruel manner -- for example, children are beaten up in school for being different. Some children are spanked or hit for their sins. Some are home schooled because public schools refuse to say prayers after the pledge. Children are isolated and removed from society, FORCED into their parent's cast every day under the system we have now. This is what we seek to abolish.

Churches and religious symbols (again) need no place in public society. You can worship in private -- these things will be much better served for the public good regardless of their religion. They will certainly make ample temporary shelter for homeless while more ample housing is established for all. After that they can be converted to rec centers, public gathering places, libraries, whatever.

The church is an institution which represents a private decision of single or multiple individuals in a very public and intrusive form. Maybe you would be ok with people practicing other private decisions in the public realm?


Would you like to tell me how any of that happens without enforcement by a state? The only way it happens without enforcement by a state is if you kill people of religious faith during your glorious revolution. Killing non-believers on that massive a scale isn't a revolution, it's conquest.

Again, you fail to realize a separation between the revolution, socialism, and communism. Go back to the books, there should be no reason you don't understand the differences and what kind of period in time this goes through if you've actually been reading the site.

Furthermore, this isn't about genocide or crusades. We ask you to take your private beliefs into the private realm -- it's not a polygraph test to see if you're religious and then a bullet to your head.


Then you have the folks telling us that in our stateless communist society, people "may have all that they need" and that "needs will be decided upon by individuals", while at the same time informing me that some things really are needed and some really are not. Well, pray tell, who decides what I really "need" if I don't really "need" the things I say I need? Do you follow me there? You can't simultaneously say people will have their basic "needs" taken care of, that people may decide what they "need", and that one thing or another isn't really a "need" without having a third party, with power, deciding what goods or services and in what quantities constitute "needs" and what goods or services or quantities exceed "need". The only way everyone comes to agreement on what constitutes a "need" is if by some miracle everyone can reach consensus on everything. And we're talking everything here, as in every product and service imaginable.

You have absolutely no sense of how production and consumption work under communism, and this is fair, there's not a lot of serious talk about it with vague statements. It's a actually a fairly exact science at first under socialism, which grows with technology and human productive capability into something more of a philosophy.

The issue is this, people are not going to just make what you want for you -- particularly if you're selfish and greedy (which it seems you are when you start asking for ferraris and a huge house and a bunch of laptops).

It works like this. There is a federation of free laborers so to speak, that is workers democracy from bottom up. These workers *GASP* are also the consumers. I know it's difficult to believe that workers would actually benefit from their own work, but bare with me. Workers contribute to their interests, and indeed create products they want. But they also contribute labor to what they need, fo the obvious reason to survive. If you want to make a ferrari, have a blast. The problem is, you need a lot of labor to make a ferrari, and I doubt you're willing to do all of it. You need someone to ore the metal and materials used in the construction of it's parts, someone to make those materials, someoen to shape those materials into the parts themselves, and someone to throw it altogether.

So what you're saying is basically "Can all you guys do this for me and give me my ferrrari, WAH!" The answer is NO, and why should they? Why should this mass of worker's labor be handed over to a single person? This is of course our issue with private property. You take socially created labor, labor which requires the labor of others to even exist, and you want to isolate it as if there is a way you can possibly compensate these people for their labor UNLESS you were to give an equal amount of labor.

If you want the material consequence of trying to do this, it is that you need to supply something of an infinite labor, as the labor of others contributes to the labor of those you're trying to compensate and the labor of even more people contributes to the labor of those. You eat the food a farmer grows, he uses the plow from the mechanic, who in turn uses the parts made by the machinist, who in turn uses the ore mined from the miner, who in turn. All of these in turn eat the food of other farmer... etc..etc...etc. On and on and on forever.

You think you have some intrinsic right to the labor of others, or at the very least to subjugate their labor if indeed you have a means to do so. But alas, the only way to have a means to do so is to have something that they do not, to be able to provide them with something they need, i.e. to have private property. Only by opposing private property and abolishing the subjugation of one man's labor by another man can one claim to give workers freedom. This is what we aim for.


Would you like to attempt to reach global consensus on what products and how much of those products constitutes a "need"?

Again, you misunderstand, and horribly so. Need does not mean it will be created for you. The needs of man MUST be created for man in order for us to survive. You do not have to reach a consensus, it is automatic, in the event of scarcity, you would see a ration system, that is fair and equal to all. If only 1,000,000 oranges can be produced by a farm and that farm services 1,000 distribution centers, you divide them up evenly. Those distribution centers can then divide them based on normal consumer basis.

All of this is actually very well organized in something of a bookkeeping system -- it becomes easy, secondary, and the groundwork is already laid in existing production systems, as yield and sales are already tracked in these types of numbers.

What is build above and beyond need, is handled in very much the same way -- but realize this is ONLY in the event of scarcity. Whether or not you believe scarcity is an issue is another question altogether.


The answer is you can't. The world is not going to magically agree that this list of products are all "needs" and in this quantity. It's impossible. So, the most likely outcome is that you folks, the leaders of your glorious revolution, are going to do what your attitude suggests you'd do: youre going to tell us what products and in what quantities meet our needs and that the rest shall be labeled "wants". The results will be 1>You're now in power, constituting a government by defining our needs for us, 2>A black market will develop because literally nobody will be satisfied with what you've determined we should have, and most importantly, like in China and the Soviet Union, 3>You're going to refuse to relinquish control, either because the incredible power you now have is going to corrupt you or because you feel the need to "finish the job" on the revolution, which of course will never actually be finished to your satisfaction.

blah blah blah blah -- you don' have to.

The problem is you can't see socialized production and consumption through your bourgeois thinking lense. You constantly try to think in terms of supply and demand, who's the boss? How can distribution be equal without someone in control? Why won't people keep all these things for themselves? What compensation does someone get for the labor they provide? Blah blah blah continued.

Control must be in the hands of the workers, always. If it is not, it is not socialism, let alone communism, period. Get it?


Hence, the Soviet Union and China and all the rest are perfect examples of communism - a revolution of the "workers" that never seemed to end because the people in charge of setting it up by some miracle could never bring themselves to declare the revolution a success and step down from power.

But you've misunderstood everything. So you're trying to tell me why they're "perfect examples of communism" on your crap definitions that aren't even really definitions, just what you believe communism to be.

You've totally ignored the actual meaning of the words even by looking at their roots.

Socialism -- root word, social, as in society.
Communism -- root word, commune, as in community.

You ignore the democratic aspects, completely forget it has anything to do with an actual economic system, and get lost in what you see as a massive crusade against anyone who doesn't agree with atheism. You believe the same bourgeois crap you've been fed from day one. Even if you take *worst cause authoritarian* Stalin, you still see him as nothing more than a mass murderer, but you fail to look at the class distinctions, you fail to look at what the "free farms" were trying to do. You see starvation numbers and account it to this cruel and unusal man, and never even stop to think about WHY he was force collectivizing these farms -- maybe it's because the new bourgeoisie in town essentially privitized their production and tried to keep it out of the hands of the state. Oh but of course "It's their product." Well that all depends on if you believe in private property or not I guess.

You've got undernumbered state run farms, and a number of these private farm that have quotas but seek to sell their product on a market. Yes, Stalin killed them, forced them to labor camps, exiled them, etc. He would have rather done that than see the factory workers starve because of the selfish and petty bourgeois desires of peasant farmers turned petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie.

I don't think anyone here who's reasonable enough in what we want to do pretends we're not going to oppose this kind of action. If Bill Gates wants to refuse to turn Microsoft's resources over to the workers (in whatever form they take, direct democracy or represented through the state) -- it will be TAKEN from him. If he wants to try and raise an army to protect his private property and stop the workers from taking it -- there WILL be bloodshed.

As I've said a billion times, the major argument between capitalists and commnists will always center on private property. It ALWAYS boils down to whether or not these people actually "own" these things. If in some alternate universe or if later in this one you ever change your understanding of who the wealth of the world belongs too, you might find yourself understanding a lot more of where we're coming from.

Until then, you simply CANNOT understand it. No matter how hard you try, you can never understand the purpose, the reasons why, or even how it works. So every argument you ever make will be born out of this misunderstanding, until the day you're willing to understand where we come from in view of private property.

The theory of communism can be stated in a single sentence: The abolition of private property (paraphrased from Marx). This is the pinnacle -- it is the pivot point that allows you to see every side of the scale. I've seen the capitalist side and the neoliberal side and I used to be one -- believing just the same in private property. But at some point Marx made some sense to me, and what he was saying about the actual nature of private property made me think about it from a far different perspective, I think only after one realzes this illusion and abstraction can anyone begin to understand socialism and communism itself.


Think about it. You think if NoXiom or some of the other anti-religionists are going to step down from power so long as there is evidence that people are still practicing religion? No, he's going to stay in power and continue to persecute the religious until religion is wiped out to his satisfaction, which by gauging the world's population of religious believers would be never. Along the way they'll probably wipe out even the insiders who get in their way.

Well unfortunately for whoever is "in power" -- whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, it's not their choice. The workers are in power, they're "in power" now, they'll be in power then. The question is of course whether or not they have any revolutionary consciousness. If indeed the workers have enough revolutionary consciousness (actual revolutionary consciousness, as opposed to played out reactionary thoughts that feed off propaganda), they're not going to trade one boss for another. End of story.

I'm not saying you can't have centralized power, it's extremely possible to centralize power but still have the working class represented, the problem is it's difficult to keep it that way. You can't guarantee they are represented unless they actually represent themselves. But you can't say their wishes aren't represented just because there's a single guy or a committee of guys calling the shots. Just like my senators might do something I agree with, for whatever instance they do so, they're representing me -- it is theoretically possible that they could represent me all the time without ever even talking to me. Again, the problem is such things aren't realistically sustainable.

The line of whether or not a system is socialism is blurry when you begin to look at worker representation. You can avoid that by handing power directly to the workers and pushing other aspects into an administrative and a state. This is the type of system I propose.

Mind you what you saw in Russia was not mass worker's revoluiton. The civil war which followed the revolution itself was closer to the real revolution, and even still, that revolution effectively played out into capitalism more than socialism (see: NEP). It's almost as if Stalin's actions were the first real attempt to actually dissolve the bourgeois power, strangely the bourgeoisie didn't really exist as a full blown class before 1917. It was in a very transitional stage -- and many argue the revolution of 1917 should have been a full blooded bourgeois revolution, to establish a class, remove the peasant class and actually create a proletariat. Russia had workers, but it's really difficult to call them the proletariat.


Does that sound familiar? Why hasn't Castro stepped down yet?

No it doesn't sound familiar. Maybe you should ask Castro.


the revolution seems like it ought to be complete by now.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Insta-Revolution! JUST ADD WATER!

Want to convert your island into a socialist paradise directly from a broken pseudo-democracy with a mob run economy in under 100 years? Good Luck! But wait, you can! With new insta-revolution, any revolution is possible, take the most backwards economic/political system, just add water, and bam! No need to allow capitalism to ferment, no need to build up pesky things like infrastructure and industry. Just add water! -- Only three easy payments of $73.95.

You have strange expectations of of such places. This isn&#39;t to say it CAN&#39;T be done in Cuba, or it couldn&#39;t be done in the USSR, or China, or Vietnam, or <insert country which hasn&#39;t yet REALLY seen capitalism>. But it&#39;s gonna take some crazy leg work. And honestly, I&#39;m not sure if Cuba is ready to abandon what authoritarian control Castro has (which mind you isn&#39;t as much as you think).

You&#39;re trying to apply the political possibilities of a post-capitalist infastructure (in terms of material conditons) to places that only barely resembled such an infrastructure, if at all. What do you expect? This is a science, whether you&#39;d like to believe that or not. You can&#39;t force successful revolution down anyone&#39;s throat, and all existing, previous, and future failing examples are proof of that.

Lots of leaders (great leaders too) get caught up in the romanticism of socialism. And they want nothing more than to see their people NEVER have to go through the brunt of capitalism, but unfortunately they gotta have one flawless plan to pull it off.


I read what you are promoting, and in a perfect world I would be all for it. But then I am told that everything would be community property and that if I wanted one of my own or more of them, I&#39;m "shit out of luck". I read that the things I think I need may, according to the revolution&#39;s leaders, not "really" be a need. Hmmm...as I consider supporting you do I really want to trust a group of people who seem to take it upon themselves to tell me what I need and that if I think I need more, I&#39;m SOL?

Maybe you don&#39;t really understand me. You do equate a lot of more authoritarian socialist practices to all of us here -- for whatever reason. If you ask me, the only pieople you should be supporting is your own damn class, if indeed you are working class. You can shit on the picture of everyone who claims to be your leader from here to high hell for all I care -- you, the working class, and any leader aren&#39;t going to see much of anything in the end if you don&#39; start putting a bit more stock in the people as a whole.


Better yet, as I consider my options, do I think I could go for supporting such an open-minded and liberty-driven movement whose adherents support murdering clergy and prohibiting me from teaching values to my own children?

You do and think whatever you want. If you have questions, I&#39;m here to answer them. If you make foolish points, I&#39;m here to refute them. But in the end I don&#39;t expect you to change your mind -- you came to this website with an agenda, and for no other reason but your own arrogance, you will probably never give that agenda up, no matter what any of us say.


I haven&#39;t seen you point out a valid working example of communism that exists in the present day to me. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else.

There is no example of working communism, there are working examples of the communist mode of production -- that is globalized, community driven production, where consumption and use of the products including all "intellectual property" embedded in them is available to all. Again, the open source movement.

And example of communism would require a hell of a lot more. But the primary arguments we get around here are against the method of production and consumption. Arguments of greed and foolish statements like "no one would work for free." The human nature argument is shit, and there&#39;s living examples of people who participate quite freely in socialized production.


I understand exactly what communism is in theory.

I&#39;m not so sure you do.


I see no evidence that the people on this board would allow it to happen. People who are full of rage and anger are usually not the types who allow democratic or individual decisions to be made.

No, of course not... at least not for those you direct your anger at. If you&#39;re not pissed off about working class exploitation, you should be. But I don&#39;t propose any democracy for the other guy, the bourgeois liberals and their "okness" with what we stand against. Nor do I think we need to for democratic and indvidual decisions to be made. In fact, I think the opposite is quite true. In order for democratic and individual decisions to be made, these people have to go. Where they go, I couldn&#39;t care less. Whether they want to join our ranks, commit suicide, or fight ot death -- I&#39;m ready for whatever.

[t_wolves_fan]

Well we all know where your ignorance comes from, apparently you can&#39;t read very well. The outcome of a communist revolution, is NOT communism, at least not directly. It is socialism, at least by the standards of any communist who believes in the transitional state.

What is the point of a "communist revolution" if the result isn&#39;t communism? Sounds like you are making excuses for the Soviet Union.


If you want to call them socialist, that&#39;s another question. But I would ask you to look at the nature of their revolutions and determine whether or not the revolutons themselves can even be considered "communist revolution." You can have all the party strength and party figures you want saying "We&#39;re communists." But the nature of the revolution is very much embedded in the society and far out of the reach of man -- It&#39;s a material factor (as any real marxist would tell you).


The question of a "pure" or "true" communist is a funny one. Indeed I use these terms, I&#39;m pretty sure I just used one in my last response to your previous statements. Don&#39;t confuse "true communist" with "true marxist" etc. There are a number of ideologies that embody communism, where they differ is primarily on how to get there and whether or not things are even really possible.


Your problem is that you don&#39;t see a difference between something actually being communism and being lead by communists. In order for a system to be communist, certain things have to be true, but we&#39;ve discussed this before, you just turn your selective reading lights off and pretend what I said doesn&#39;t apply.

These three statements together make no sense. First you tell me people can call themselves "communist" all they want but that doesn&#39;t make them communist, then you tell me there is no such thing as "pure" communism and that there are all kinds of communism, then you tell me certain things must be true for a system to be communist.

You&#39;re splitting hairs. Which is it? Is "communism" a decentralized, undefined term that is different things to different people or is it a definite theory with certain basic requirements?


You cannot "escape" capitalism, you cannot avoid it&#39;s term, you do not pass go. The minute you mention a backwards nation like the USSR or China the first thing that should be popping into your mind, if you&#39;ve actually even bothered to read the majority of posts on this board, is, "In what ways did they actually progress towards socialism." You&#39;ve got a strong capability in selective reading if you&#39;re not forced to ask such questions after reading the majority of posts here. But I have no doubt that is the case, you seem very much to only pick out the parts you want to hear.

This statement doesn&#39;t even make any sense. You&#39;re basically excusing everything that happened in China as a result of communist revolution. Oh, you say, it&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fault that Mao killed 20 million people and it&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fault that China is moving towards economic liberalization. That&#39;s pretty convenient. Just blame the failure of the revolution on capitalism so that you don&#39;t have to fault the failed ideology, right?



Also, however, in order for someone to be communist certain things have to apply.

Really. How does that mesh with the statement above: "There are a number of ideologies that embody communism, where they differ is primarily on how to get there and whether or not things are even really possible."

If "communists" can&#39;t agree on what communism is, how to get there, and whether it&#39;s even possible, then how on earth can there be certain "things" that apply?


Where you go way off is in assuming that the communist nature of an individual, party, union, or organization automatically makes that nation communist. I think I&#39;ve actually stated this before, but not directly to you, someone who had the same time of logic. What you claim is the equivalent of saying that when a Republican gets into the white house, or republicans control the senate, the US is no longer democratic, but republican -- and then when a democrat gets in it would be democratic.

Um, no. That&#39;s absurd. We don&#39;t hear George W. Bush saying that our system is based on "republican" beliefs, do we? I have yet to hear any Repubilcan officials say this is a "republican" system. Everyone, Democratic and Republican, says this is a democracy. Some get it technically right and call it a Democratic Republic. On the other hand we had people in the Soviet Union call themselves and their country "communist".


Using this logic you can relate all the flaws in the attempts at a system, to the system itself. It works out good for you, because it makes your argument simple, but it&#39;s a weak argument.

:lol: That is EXACTLY what everyone here does with capitalism&#33;


For you there is no point where a system can have communist leaders, attempting socialism for the eventual end of communism, without the system actually being communist.

Exactly. I&#39;m not going to look at a system where the leadership calls themselves "communist" and says the system exists as it does because of a "communist" revolution and then say that system isn&#39;t "communist".

Now the distinction between that and looking at the United States and not calling it "Republican" is that no Republicans are calling our system "Republican". They are a party, not a system. They say, "We are Republicans, and this is how we think we should run our Democratic system..." In a communist state however there are no parties, system and party are the same thing.


You mash all this into one -- another one of your big problems. You don&#39;t differentiate between revolution, socialism, and communism. You pull it all into one and see it happening in something of a few decades. You&#39;d be lucky to find a religious person to oppress under communism. After possibly centuries of socialism in each nation I doubt you&#39;d be able to find one.

It is all one, isn&#39;t it? The revolution takes place and a system is installed. Are you trying to tell me that the lack of religion in a "communist" system is ok because it&#39;s separate from the revolution, which is where all the religious people are killed and the buildings destroyed? I&#39;m sorry, I find it absurd to separate the revolution and the crimes committed in its process from the system it creates.

Your assumption that religion would magically "disappear" as a result of communism is a bold one. What if you&#39;re wrong? Are you going to enforce your belief?


As far as the random murdering of preiests and forced atheism. This is all a bit foolish -- you cannot FORCE atheism on someone. Belief in God is just that, a belief -- they might play like an atheist in public, but the minute they get home they prey to God and thank them for his daily bounty. And this is where we want it.

What if they don&#39;t want to "act atheist" in public? How is this really any different from making people "act religious" in public and allowing them to be atheist at home? There is no difference.

Many religions call for trying to convert people. That is part of their expression and it would have to be done "in public". Would that be allowed in your system? Would a mormon be allowed to set up a table in public and try to get people to become mormon? Would peple even be allowed to wear cross necklaces or put nativity scenes in their yards?


It is such a private matter that indeed no parent should be able to instill it into their child

Who are you to tell people how to raise their children and how do you enforce that?


-- on the contrary, a child should be able to think on their own, and grow up free from any environment that forces any personal ideology on them, including the communist ideology.

LOL&#33; That&#39;s rich. How does a child not grow up learning the communist ideology when he/she lives in a communist system?


What we argue is that society would have a direct role in raising children under communism, and probably late term socialism. Whether you&#39;d like to agree or not, society already does play a major role in raising children, or at least instilling ideas and these "values" you talk about in them.

How does this compare to your statement above that children should grow up free from an environment that forces even communist ideology on them? It&#39;s a direct contradiction&#33;


But it does so in a very cruel manner -- for example, children are beaten up in school for being different. Some children are spanked or hit for their sins. Some are home schooled because public schools refuse to say prayers after the pledge. Children are isolated and removed from society, FORCED into their parent&#39;s cast every day under the system we have now. This is what we seek to abolish.

You&#39;ve just said you would force onto children to abide by your personal ideology (by definition, by abolishing the current system and setting up a system of your choosing) immediately after saying you want children to grow up in an environment free from personal ideologies.

Do you not see the contradictions in your own statements?


Churches and religious symbols (again) need no place in public society. You can worship in private -- these things will be much better served for the public good regardless of their religion. They will certainly make ample temporary shelter for homeless while more ample housing is established for all. After that they can be converted to rec centers, public gathering places, libraries, whatever.

First of all, without a state, by what authority would churches be converted into rec centers or "public" gathering places?


The church is an institution which represents a private decision of single or multiple individuals in a very public and intrusive form. Maybe you would be ok with people practicing other private decisions in the public realm?

Why on earth wouldn&#39;t we be ok with people practicing private decisions in the public realm so long as they violate nobody&#39;s rights?

What other "private" decisions do you plan on banning? How do you intend to ban these private decisions with no government?



It works like this. There is a federation of free laborers so to speak, that is workers democracy from bottom up. These workers *GASP* are also the consumers. I know it&#39;s difficult to believe that workers would actually benefit from their own work, but bare with me. Workers contribute to their interests, and indeed create products they want. But they also contribute labor to what they need, fo the obvious reason to survive.

How will this be managed? Top-down or bottom up? If people in Buffalo want/need orange juice but have to get it from workers in Florida, what happens if the workers in Florida vote to only produce an amount of OJ that is insufficient to meet demand in Buffalo and Chicago?


So what you&#39;re saying is basically "Can all you guys do this for me and give me my ferrrari, WAH&#33;" The answer is NO, and why should they? Why should this mass of worker&#39;s labor be handed over to a single person?

Then why would we allow an individual family to live in a house? Isn&#39;t that the same as handing over labor to individual people?


If you want the material consequence of trying to do this, it is that you need to supply something of an infinite labor, as the labor of others contributes to the labor of those you&#39;re trying to compensate and the labor of even more people contributes to the labor of those. You eat the food a farmer grows, he uses the plow from the mechanic, who in turn uses the parts made by the machinist, who in turn uses the ore mined from the miner, who in turn. All of these in turn eat the food of other farmer... etc..etc...etc. On and on and on forever.

Sounds like capitalism.


You think you have some intrinsic right to the labor of others, or at the very least to subjugate their labor if indeed you have a means to do so. But alas, the only way to have a means to do so is to have something that they do not, to be able to provide them with something they need, i.e. to have private property. Only by opposing private property and abolishing the subjugation of one man&#39;s labor by another man can one claim to give workers freedom. This is what we aim for.

Sorry but this statement as well as the two that preceed it make no sense at all.



Again, you misunderstand, and horribly so. Need does not mean it will be created for you. The needs of man MUST be created for man in order for us to survive.

Thse two statements are contradictions. The first says even if you need it, it may not be created. The second says if you need it, it MUST be created or you will die. Basically you&#39;re telling me there&#39;s a good chance I&#39;ll die because my needs aren&#39;t met in your system.


You do not have to reach a consensus, it is automatic, in the event of scarcity, you would see a ration system, that is fair and equal to all. If only 1,000,000 oranges can be produced by a farm and that farm services 1,000 distribution centers, you divide them up evenly. Those distribution centers can then divide them based on normal consumer basis.

Then you&#39;ll have a black market, guaranteed.

Again, I pose this very basic question to you: If 5 billion people need fruit to survive but the local communes agree to produce only 4 billion pieces of fruit a day, who wins? The local communes or the central government? Of do you distribute the 4 billion oranges and let the rest die of malnutrition?



The problem is you can&#39;t see socialized production and consumption through your bourgeois thinking lense. You constantly try to think in terms of supply and demand, who&#39;s the boss? How can distribution be equal without someone in control? Why won&#39;t people keep all these things for themselves? What compensation does someone get for the labor they provide? Blah blah blah continued.

Control must be in the hands of the workers, always. If it is not, it is not socialism, let alone communism, period. Get it?

See my question above. It goes for every imaginable product, both needs and wants. You said yourself that needs MUSt be created by labor or people die. So, each individual house or housing-building commune votes to create a total of 5 million housing units. But 7 million are needed. WHO WINS? WHO EXCERCISES CONTROL?


But you&#39;ve misunderstood everything. So you&#39;re trying to tell me why they&#39;re "perfect examples of communism" on your crap definitions that aren&#39;t even really definitions, just what you believe communism to be.

But you told me above that there are many different stripes of communism.

Which is it?


Even if you take *worst cause authoritarian* Stalin, you still see him as nothing more than a mass murderer, but you fail to look at the class distinctions, you fail to look at what the "free farms" were trying to do.

LOL. Hitler was trying to do good things for the Germans, didn&#39;t he? Based on your logic we should ignore the holocaust and praise Hitler for trying to improve Germany&#39;s economy.

What an absolutely moronic statement. I wouldn&#39;t care if Stalin were known as the kindest, most brilliant man in the history of the world who donated all his spare time to sick kids. The man&#39;s leadership and the system he ran killed 20 million people. You idiots spend your time complaining how capitalism is bad because millions of people from 3rd world countries are oppressed or killed, yet you&#39;ll excuse 20 million deaths on the part of Stalin for the things he "tried" to do.

Do you see why that&#39;s completely absurd? I mean, can you even kind of see my point here?


You see starvation numbers and account it to this cruel and unusal man, and never even stop to think about WHY he was force collectivizing these farms -- maybe it&#39;s because the new bourgeoisie in town essentially privitized their production and tried to keep it out of the hands of the state. Oh but of course "It&#39;s their product." Well that all depends on if you believe in private property or not I guess.

So, killing 20 million is a small price to pay for collectivising farms.

Wow. Talk about your "ends justify the means" attitude.


I don&#39;t think anyone here who&#39;s reasonable enough in what we want to do pretends we&#39;re not going to oppose this kind of action. If Bill Gates wants to refuse to turn Microsoft&#39;s resources over to the workers (in whatever form they take, direct democracy or represented through the state) -- it will be TAKEN from him. If he wants to try and raise an army to protect his private property and stop the workers from taking it -- there WILL be bloodshed.

And you wonder why people disagree with your position?


As I&#39;ve said a billion times, the major argument between capitalists and commnists will always center on private property. It ALWAYS boils down to whether or not these people actually "own" these things. If in some alternate universe or if later in this one you ever change your understanding of who the wealth of the world belongs too, you might find yourself understanding a lot more of where we&#39;re coming from.

I understand perfectly who the wealth belongs to, it belongs to the people who came up with the good ideas.


Until then, you simply CANNOT understand it. No matter how hard you try, you can never understand the purpose, the reasons why, or even how it works. So every argument you ever make will be born out of this misunderstanding, until the day you&#39;re willing to understand where we come from in view of private property.

My beliefs are not based on a "misunderstanding". Calling it a misunderstanding is just the coward&#39;s way of trying to dismiss the argument. We disagree fundamentally on the role of private property. That is not a "misunderstanding", it&#39;s a disagreement.


The theory of communism can be stated in a single sentence: The abolition of private property (paraphrased from Marx). This is the pinnacle -- it is the pivot point that allows you to see every side of the scale. I&#39;ve seen the capitalist side and the neoliberal side and I used to be one -- believing just the same in private property. But at some point Marx made some sense to me, and what he was saying about the actual nature of private property made me think about it from a far different perspective, I think only after one realzes this illusion and abstraction can anyone begin to understand socialism and communism itself.

I just think you have a misunderstanding.

See how easy that is?


Well unfortunately for whoever is "in power" -- whatever the hell that&#39;s supposed to mean, it&#39;s not their choice. The workers are in power, they&#39;re "in power" now, they&#39;ll be in power then.

Will the workers be in power when you prohibit them from religious expression? Will they be in power when you take their children away from them because they had the audacity to say grace at the dinner table? Will the workers have power when you prohibit them from homeschooling their own children?

Do you think the workers will be happy with economic power but not individual power of thought and belief?


The question is of course whether or not they have any revolutionary consciousness. If indeed the workers have enough revolutionary consciousness (actual revolutionary consciousness, as opposed to played out reactionary thoughts that feed off propaganda), they&#39;re not going to trade one boss for another. End of story.

What if they don&#39;t? It&#39;s pretty fucking easy to sit here and say "if everyone agrees, there will be no problem", but what if they don&#39;t?


I&#39;m not saying you can&#39;t have centralized power,

That&#39;s funny, one of the many things I&#39;ve been seeing all these different "kinds" of communists tell me is central to the philosophy is a lack of centralized power.

Which is it?


it&#39;s extremely possible to centralize power but still have the working class represented, the problem is it&#39;s difficult to keep it that way. You can&#39;t guarantee they are represented unless they actually represent themselves. But you can&#39;t say their wishes aren&#39;t represented just because there&#39;s a single guy or a committee of guys calling the shots. Just like my senators might do something I agree with, for whatever instance they do so, they&#39;re representing me -- it is theoretically possible that they could represent me all the time without ever even talking to me. Again, the problem is such things aren&#39;t realistically sustainable.

This statement makes little sense but sounds like a defense of the system we have now. You basically say it&#39;s ok to have centralized power, even if workers aren&#39;t represented. That hardly sounds like one of the central tenets of communism.


The line of whether or not a system is socialism is blurry when you begin to look at worker representation. You can avoid that by handing power directly to the workers and pushing other aspects into an administrative and a state. This is the type of system I propose.

"Other aspects" such as taking children away from parents, I suppose?

. It&#39;s almost as if Stalin&#39;s actions were the first real attempt to actually dissolve the bourgeois power, strangely the bourgeoisie didn&#39;t really exist as a full blown class before 1917.[/quote]

:o You obviously don&#39;t know jack shit about Russian history. Read "War and Peace" sometime and let me know if there was no bourgeois class.



Insta-Revolution&#33; JUST ADD WATER&#33;

Want to convert your island into a socialist paradise directly from a broken pseudo-democracy with a mob run economy in under 100 years? Good Luck&#33; But wait, you can&#33; With new insta-revolution, any revolution is possible, take the most backwards economic/political system, just add water, and bam&#33; No need to allow capitalism to ferment, no need to build up pesky things like infrastructure and industry. Just add water&#33; -- Only three easy payments of &#036;73.95.

Sarcasm is usually used when one can&#39;t refute an argument.


You have strange expectations of of such places. This isn&#39;t to say it CAN&#39;T be done in Cuba, or it couldn&#39;t be done in the USSR, or China, or Vietnam, or <insert country which hasn&#39;t yet REALLY seen capitalism>. But it&#39;s gonna take some crazy leg work. And honestly, I&#39;m not sure if Cuba is ready to abandon what authoritarian control Castro has (which mind you isn&#39;t as much as you think).

You can be arrested for "disrepecting the President" Sounds authoritarian to me. Crazy leg work, eh? One would think the task could be completed on a tiny island in less than 50 years, don&#39;t you think? I mean if the system works so well, it ought to work on a tiny island with a population of just 11 million people.

Maybe it&#39;s because the Island&#39;s best and brightest keep fleeing. Who knows?


YYou can&#39;t force successful revolution down anyone&#39;s throat, and all existing, previous, and future failing examples are proof of that.

Tell me, how does that statement mesh with...


If Bill Gates wants to refuse to turn Microsoft&#39;s resources over to the workers (in whatever form they take, direct democracy or represented through the state) -- it will be TAKEN from him. If he wants to try and raise an army to protect his private property and stop the workers from taking it -- there WILL be bloodshed.

You can&#39;t force a revolution down anyone&#39;s throat, but if they try to keep something it will be taken from them and there WILL be bloodshed.

Fuck boy you should definitely go to law school or run from office some day. Your ability to say two diametrically opposite things in such a short span is quite impressive.


Lots of leaders (great leaders too) get caught up in the romanticism of socialism. And they want nothing more than to see their people NEVER have to go through the brunt of capitalism, but unfortunately they gotta have one flawless plan to pull it off.

Doesn&#39;t even have to be flawless&#33; They can kill 20 million thru starvation and they&#39;ll always have people like you to defend them.


Maybe you don&#39;t really understand me. You do equate a lot of more authoritarian socialist practices to all of us here -- for whatever reason. If you ask me, the only pieople you should be supporting is your own damn class,

I see. So killing people who refuse to give up their property, taking children from parents who are religious and forcing people onto collevtive farms where there is a decent chance they&#39;ll starve to death is your way of just sticking to supporting your own class?


You really need to take more time to get your thoughts in order and come up with a coherent argument.

[NovelGentry]

You spend line after line and post after post telling us that the Soviet Union and China are not "communist", then let it slip that there are a number of ideologies that embody communism and that the whole ideology has different meanings to different people.

And apparently I was right about your inability to read and comprehend. Saying there are a number of ideologies that embody communism is not the same as saying communism embodies a number of ideologies. That is to say, Probably dozens, maybe even hundreds of ideologies seek the end result of communism, it is again, only how we get there that differs.

Both the USSR and China were on somewhat (although not completely) differing paths, which their leaders/parties/whatever thought would bring about the eventual end results of socialism internationally and the move to communism. Much like Cuba is on a different path than the USSR and China were, and much the same, it aims for the eventual goal of supporting (and already does support) international progress to socialism, and then a global progress towards communism.

What you confuse for communism is the method, but communism itself, as a form of society, is the end result.


Basically, you&#39;re talking out both sides of your mouth. "Russia and China aren&#39;t communist because I say they&#39;re not but communism is different things to different people so different systems can be called communist..."

See above statement. You really are confusing the idea that ideologies can embody communism with the idea that communism can embody different ideologies. The first means that more than one ideology can aim for communism, the second, which is not what I&#39;m saying at all, is that communism can maintain various forms depending on ideology. EDIT: To clarify further for you, as I&#39;m quite certain you won&#39;t be able to comprehend that. Communism is a definite and definable form which society takes -- we know in extremely certain terms what makes communism. The USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Albania, and wherever else were not this form of society. But, to analogize, communism itself is a definable end result, something like say a computer program designed to do and manage a specific task with specific properties -- but there&#39;s about 8,000 different ways to program such a program, that is where the differing ideologies come in.

When you&#39;re better able to comprehend the language, come back and we can talk again.