Is this guy one of you?

[t_wolves_fan]

Your debating style is very mature:

http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/video/6/commiespit.avi

[RedAnarchist]

Yes, the idiotic actions of one person must mean that everyone who is like him is like that. Why choose Communism? Why not his curly hair? beard? glasses? gender?

You make no valid point. Its just generalisation.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:16 PM
Yes, the idiotic actions of one person must mean that everyone who is like him is like that. Why choose Communism? Why not his curly hair? beard? glasses? gender?

You make no valid point. Its just generalisation.
Kind of like the idiotic actions of a few cops with tazers make us an oppressive society?

Or like how one couple sold their child's name on E-bay makes capitalism disgusting?

You're quite handy to my arguments.

:ph34r:

[RedAnarchist]

A capitalist society is far more oppressive than just a few police officers.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:23 PM
A capitalist society is far more oppressive than just a few police officers.
Yes, the evidence in the other thread is overwhelming.

Tell me, which would you consider more oppressive:

A> Our capitalist society as it exists now.

B> A society where religious buildings are demolished, parents are prohobited from instilling religious values in their children, public religious expression is prohibited, and clergy are murdered?

A or B?

[Sabocat]

A.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:31 PM
A.
Seriously?

On what do you base your belief?

[Sabocat]

Whereas I am an atheist, I consider all religion detrimental to society. I believe the elimination of clergy and their worthless edifices, public expression of religion, and elimination of religious brainwashing of children a good start. I consider religion a form of control that needs to be eliminated as it is inherently oppressive and reactionary.

I consider a system that allows people to work and only barely survive more oppressive.

I consider a system that allows any segment of it's population to go hungry more oppressive.

I consider a system that doesn't provide full free education from K to Graduate university as a basic human right to all it's citizens thus perpetuating social strata more oppressive.

I consider a system that allows any of it's citizenry to live on the street homeless more oppressive.

I consider a system that does not provide universal healthcare to all it's citizens more oppressive.

I consider a system that does not provide equality to all regardless of race, gender, sexual preference more oppressive.

I consider a society based on class structures more oppressive.

[colombiano]

A> Our capitalist society as it exists now.

You are painting far to Rosie of a Picture. Perhaps you should take a refresher American History Class.

I am NOT condoning


A society where religious buildings are demolished, parents are prohobited from instilling religious values in their children, public religious expression is prohibited, and clergy are murdered

Yet for you or ANY american to try and substantiate your form of capitalism as humane is laughable and hypocritical.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:29 PM
Whereas I am an atheist, I consider all religion detrimental to society. I believe the elimination of clergy and their worthless edifices, public expression of religion, and elimination of religious brainwashing of children a good start. I consider religion a form of control that needs to be eliminated as it is inherently oppressive and reactionary.

I consider a system that allows people to work and only barely survive more oppressive.

I consider a system that allows any segment of it's population to go hungry more oppressive.

I consider a system that doesn't provide full free education from K to Graduate university as a basic human right to all it's citizens thus perpetuating social strata more oppressive.

I consider a system that allows any of it's citizenry to live on the street homeless more oppressive.

I consider a system that does not provide universal healthcare to all it's citizens more oppressive.

I consider a system that does not provide equality to all regardless of race, gender, sexual preference more oppressive.

I consider a society based on class structures more oppressive.
Most of your complaints about capitalism and the west are based on what these societies do not provide.

Yet your complaint about religion indicates you would prohibit it's practice.

Considering people are free to pursue and have the things you think should be provided, which do you think is more oppressive: to prohibit religious practice and thought or to not provide the things on your list.

Remember, there is a difference between not providing something and not allowing people to have it.

[t_wolves_fan]

You are painting far to Rosie of a Picture. Perhaps you should take a refresher American History Class.

What does history have to do with asking what you think of the present situation?


I am NOT condoning


A society where religious buildings are demolished, parents are prohobited from instilling religious values in their children, public religious expression is prohibited, and clergy are murdered

Then you are in opposition to a few folks on this board.

Don't opinions like the one above scare you? It certainly scares me.


Yet for you or ANY american to try and substantiate your form of capitalism as humane is laughable and hypocritical.

That is your opinion.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

A capitalist society is far more oppressive than just a few police officers.

And it's a capitalist society which doesn't exist in this country.

[JazzRemington]

Meh, people just get worked up and do shit sometimes. But it's funny that you don't hear them say anything about the times when republicans assualted people from the left.

[bunk]

good on him, i can't pretend to feel sorry for that protestwarrior

[colombiano]

What does history have to do with asking what you think of the present situation?
Alot it shows how american society has been formed and through what means.




Then you are in opposition to a few folks on this board.

Don't opinions like the one above scare you? It certainly scares me.

Do they scare me ? no.
Do I disagree ?yes.
What scares me is the capitalist mantra of cut throat Profit over People ideals.



That is your opinion

I think history speaks for itself.

[Loknar]

If I was the one holding the camera, I would have kicked his ass.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 02:10 PM
Your debating style is very mature:

http://dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/video/6/commiespit.avi
It just proves how angry the system of exploitation and oppression we live in makes people.

I don't really see your point. People get emotional, and when they are emotional they become irrational. Its apart of being human.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:28 PM
Tell me, which would you consider more oppressive:

A> Our capitalist society as it exists now.

B> A society where religious buildings are demolished, parents are prohobited from instilling religious values in their children, public religious expression is prohibited, and clergy are murdered?

A or B?
A

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'd say "A" - not because of any particular antipathy toward Preists (I half-expect to end up a Jesuit, albeit, an atheist Jesuit "in it for the fringe benefits"), but because starving the fuck out of the third world, and the banal evils we don't think about are FAR more disturbing then a few bulldozed churches.
I certainly don't support option "B" but to suggest offing a couple clergy is as bad as the systematic brutalization, starvation, bombing-the-fuck-out-of, and general oppressin' that occures under current circumstances, then you are a fuckwit (and probably believe that all Palestinians are terrorists).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 23 2005, 09:31 PM
(I half-expect to end up a Jesuit, albeit, an atheist Jesuit "in it for the fringe benefits").
Will you join Opus Dei with me?

[NovelGentry]

Yes, he's one of mine. Happy now?

[colombiano]

B> A society where religious buildings are demolished, parents are prohobited from instilling religious values in their children, public religious expression is prohibited, and clergy are murdered?

A very strong arguement could be made that Christians are the most murderous people in the history of mankind.

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:09 PM
If I was the one holding the camera, I would have kicked his ass.
...

[JazzRemington]

:lol:

[RedLenin]

We should not completely outlaw all religion. Rather, it could be practiced but authoritarian religious institutions must be abolished. If a group of people want to get together at a house and worship something, providing the don't impose on anybody else, I see no problem. People should be able to believe and practice what the want as long as they do not impose on the liberty of others.

[bed_of_nails]

This is a completely bullshit idea. It is like saying "Stalin killed alot of people... Therefore, all Communists are bad!". I love using this analogy... By the same logic of those people; "Americans tried to commit genocide against the Native Americans with everything from attacking women and children, to offering the Native Americans smallpox-infested blankets... Therefore, all Americans are bad!"

Only a prejudicial fool judges an entire community based on one person's influence and actions.

[colombiano]

BED OF NAILS I agree. I have been dangling that bait out there waiting for a Cappie fish to bite. Futhermore US atrocities don't end there.

[rice349]

Why should we be ashamed as communists of what Stalin did? Stalin simply helped save the workers from reactionarie and counter-revolutionaries. If religious buildings and religion itself, allong with private property, parents raising their own kids, or whatever else has to be lost in the name of communism then so be it. Why should we be passive towards those who seek to destroy us? I think it is highly contradictory for one to be passive against the same people who wish to enslave and baptize the working class.

[comrade_mufasa]

If religious buildings and religion itself, allong with private property, parents raising their own kids, or whatever else has to be lost in the name of communism then so be it.
:blink: WHAT? I would gladly starve a whole nation to be with my child and I would expect any parent to do the same. Now if you mean that parents should not press thier religion onto their kids then ok, but to say that if the revolution calls for the ending of parenthood then fuck the revolution. I support communism becouse I belive that it is a better society for my children to live and grow in.

[cormacobear]

I'm all for religious freedom. Jesus teaches tolerance and that forcing others to live by Christian ideals is immoral. So passing laws that force gays and non-Christians to live by Christian values is against the teachings of the new testament.

You are free to teach your children Christian values, but the state is not.
If the state says you can't have an abortion because it offends our christian values, then by the exact same logic any non-christian country can say you can't go to mass it offends our Muslim, athiest, zoroastrian, Judaic, sensabilites.

Your question A or B, is the exact same thing both are examples of oppression. A government that allows a monopoly of the press, or uses the national gaurd to take away peoples rights to peacefull protest, or destroys churches. It's all oppression and it's all wrong.

The governments job is not to tell us what is right or wrong in our social interactions it's job is to equitably organize the economy so that no one is left behind.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:08 AM
I'm all for religious freedom.
Why?

Are you also "all for" political freedom?

[Guest1]

Hypothetical communist situation, no state:

You have the freedom to practice your religion. Do it in front of me, and people will consider it promoting hate.

You have the freedom to talk about religion. Do it in public, and people will consider it promoting hate.

You have the freedom to learn about religion. Do it to your children, and people will consider it promoting hate.

Those are the basic rules of how not to annoy others with your cult and how not to attempt to brainwash others into your cult.

[Ian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:09 AM
If I was the one holding the camera, I would have kicked his ass.
come to sydney and we'll fight

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:27 AM
We should not completely outlaw all religion. Rather, it could be practiced but authoritarian religious institutions must be abolished. If a group of people want to get together at a house and worship something, providing the don't impose on anybody else, I see no problem. People should be able to believe and practice what the want as long as they do not impose on the liberty of others.
Who would determine what does and does not constitute an "authoritarian" religious institution?

If force were used to abolish said institution, wouldn't that constitute government action?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:13 AM
Why should we be ashamed as communists of what Stalin did? Stalin simply helped save the workers from reactionarie and counter-revolutionaries. If religious buildings and religion itself, allong with private property, parents raising their own kids, or whatever else has to be lost in the name of communism then so be it. Why should we be passive towards those who seek to destroy us? I think it is highly contradictory for one to be passive against the same people who wish to enslave and baptize the working class.
You would take children away from their parents in order to further your cause?

This level of oppression indicates you don't think you can sell your cause on its merits.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 24 2005, 10:50 AM
Hypothetical communist situation, no state:

You have the freedom to practice your religion. Do it in front of me, and people will consider it promoting hate.

You have the freedom to talk about religion. Do it in public, and people will consider it promoting hate.

You have the freedom to learn about religion. Do it to your children, and people will consider it promoting hate.

Those are the basic rules of how not to annoy others with your cult and how not to attempt to brainwash others into your cult.
So you would not allow individuals or groups to express their religious beliefs in public?

You'd not allow parents to teach values to their children?

What power will you use to get "people" to consider public expression of religion as "promoting hate"? Or are you under the impression that they're all just going to magically agree with you?

Or do you simply plan on killing everyone who disagrees with you on this?

You're an angry, sick, and psychotic freak.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 24 2005, 10:21 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 24 2005, 10:21 AM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 11:08 AM
I'm all for religious freedom.
Why?

Are you also "all for" political freedom? [/b]
What's wrong with religious freedom?

Isn't it very similar to political freedom?

Ought that be limited as well?

[t_wolves_fan]

I'm all for religious freedom. Jesus teaches tolerance and that forcing others to live by Christian ideals is immoral. So passing laws that force gays and non-Christians to live by Christian values is against the teachings of the new testament.

Agreed.


You are free to teach your children Christian values, but the state is not.
If the state says you can't have an abortion because it offends our christian values, then by the exact same logic any non-christian country can say you can't go to mass it offends our Muslim, athiest, zoroastrian, Judaic, sensabilites.

Agreed.


Your question A or B, is the exact same thing both are examples of oppression. A government that allows a monopoly of the press, or uses the national gaurd to take away peoples rights to peacefull protest, or destroys churches. It's all oppression and it's all wrong.

Where has a government allowed monopoly of the press or used the Nat'l Guard to take away people's rights to protest? I haven't seen it happen here in the U.S.


The governments job is not to tell us what is right or wrong in our social interactions it's job is to equitably organize the economy so that no one is left behind.

I disagree, the government's job is to enforce rules that allow us to use our natural talents to the best of our ability without violating the rights of others.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

What was wrong with the guy in the video, I don't get the thread at all. He seemed like the kind of guy we need more of, riled up.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Pedro Alonso [email protected] 24 2005, 05:02 PM
What was wrong with the guy in the video, I don't get the thread at all. He seemed like the kind of guy we need more of, riled up.
Good luck convincing people to join your side by screaming at them that they "must have gotten the shit kicked out of them" in high school.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

We dont want fascists on our side, we treat normal people with respect and fascists like those at PW with contempt, I say fair play to him.

[rice349]

You would take children away from their parents in order to further your cause?

This level of oppression indicates you don't think you can sell your cause on its merits.

Yes, children become societal--not the property of their parents.

And no, this isn't oppression its what's best for society. Second of all, I have no interest in selling my case on merits. I'm interested in what Marx said, "dethroning God, and destroying capitalism."

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:53 PM

You would take children away from their parents in order to further your cause?

This level of oppression indicates you don't think you can sell your cause on its merits.

Yes, children become societal--not the property of their parents.

And no, this isn't oppression its what's best for society. Second of all, I have no interest in selling my case on merits. I'm interested in what Marx said, "dethroning God, and destroying capitalism."
Go up to a mother and tell her you're taking her child because it's "best for society".

Just because you hate your own parents, and probably vice versa, does not mean all children will be glad to be rid of their parents, and vice versa.

Whacko.

[NovelGentry]

As much as you'd like to make this case, this is not an example of "Steal her baby and move her 300 miles away where she can't affect it."

Societal upbringing is extremely natural in the current system, at least for those without the freedom and luxury to keep an isolated family. Working class parents don't exactly have time to home school their children, or the money for private schools, thus public school is the only option. Which in itself instills very random/arbitrary ideas into the child, as opposed to say an expensive catholic boarding school where you no your child will grow up to be the right wing nutjob you always wanted him to be... bombing abortion clinics because he "respects the right to life."

The question is of course, when the child is isolated from society -- which indeed would be a questionable practice even for adults. Why would you not take part in your local democracy? Why wouldn't you have an active role in bettering your society? Locking your child in the house while you do whatever work you contribute to society is not an acceptable means of raising a child -- particularly one, who much like everyone else, is one day going to be an active member of this society who contributes in terms of production, and takes back in consumption.

There should be a very community driven effort and influence in everyone's lives -- and the recluse, child or grownup, will be extremely frowned upon. I can guarantee a situation where a child is actually physically restrained by their parent to "protect them from the views of society" would constitute some form of serious crime -- as I would hope it does even under this capitalist/republic.

Without private schools, it's difficult to say there's not a public upbringing, that is, if you want your child to be schooled. With the active role everyone plays in democracy (and an role that should be learned at a very young age) it's difficult to believe a child would have any reason to be set aside as a recluse from the political/social scene. With the idea that a child may wish to enter into a very specific field of interest/work -- they would work with the existing members of society already in that line of work to learn directly, and maybe even contribute their abilities as soon as they feel they are ready.

With all this public exposure through every day life, how would you consider a child non-societal? How would you even suspect the parent to understand any other way of bringing up a child, given the centuries that socialism developing into communism will probably take, you will see generations over time grow up in this open, friendly, and amazingly active environment. It will be the social norm, and I can't imagine why anyone would seek to change it.

The question is of course, do you have a right to STOP the child from taking up such an active role in society? The answer is, and always should be no, they are a separate human being with their own interests and freedom -- no matter how much your current system picks out an arbitrary age and calls you a "minor" until then, under the whim of your parents, that doesn't mean there's some magical age where all the sudden you grow into your rights. All humans, regardless of any factor, including age, are afforded the rights NOT to be subjugated and restricted by another individuals whim.

[rice349]

Go up to a mother and tell her you're taking her child because it's "best for society".

Just because you hate your own parents, and probably vice versa, does not mean all children will be glad to be rid of their parents, and vice versa.

Like novelgentry said it wouldn't be a case of stealing the child away from the mother, it would be more like a boarding school situation. Secondly, lol i don't hate my own parents and i'm curious as to whether or not they hate me.

Perhaps its your fear of change what's really crazy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Societal upbringing is extremely natural in the current system, at least for those without the freedom and luxury to keep an isolated family. Working class parents don't exactly have time to home school their children, or the money for private schools, thus public school is the only option. Which in itself instills very random/arbitrary ideas into the child, as opposed to say an expensive catholic boarding school where you no your child will grow up to be the right wing nutjob you always wanted him to be... bombing abortion clinics because he "respects the right to life."

None of which addresses the central question: It's been advocated that parents not be allowed to instill religious beliefs in their children.

Even parents of public school students instill religious beliefs in their children.

So, how do you enforce your regulation that parents not be allowed to instill religious beliefs?


The question is of course, when the child is isolated from society -- which indeed would be a questionable practice even for adults. Why would you not take part in your local democracy?

Because it's your choice. Democracy includes the right not to vote and not to participate.

Do you propose forcing people to be involved? How?


Why wouldn't you have an active role in bettering your society? Locking your child in the house while you do whatever work you contribute to society is not an acceptable means of raising a child

That's your opinion and I agree with it.

But again, do you force people to get their kids involved? If they don't, what do you do?



There should be a very community driven effort and influence in everyone's lives -- and the recluse, child or grownup, will be extremely frowned upon.

I thought you said in the other thread that children should be free from having such philosophies forced upon them.



I can guarantee a situation where a child is actually physically restrained by their parent to "protect them from the views of society" would constitute some form of serious crime -- as I would hope it does even under this capitalist/republic.

I am not talking about child abuse. It's been advocated that parents not be allowed to instill religious beliefs in their children. Obviously it should be illegal to beat religion into them, but what has been advocated on this site goes a little farther than that.

Should parents be allowed to sit their children down after school and teach them the bible?


(and an role that should be learned at a very young age)


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.

These contradict.

Which is it?

Why don't you just admit that you think children should be brought up with values that match yours?



it's difficult to believe a child would have any reason to be set aside as a recluse from the political/social scene. With the idea that a child may wish to enter into a very specific field of interest/work -- they would work with the existing members of society already in that line of work to learn directly, and maybe even contribute their abilities as soon as they feel they are ready.

I agree but I don't see how that can be forced.


With all this public exposure through every day life, how would you consider a child non-societal? How would you even suspect the parent to understand any other way of bringing up a child, given the centuries that socialism developing into communism will probably take, you will see generations over time grow up in this open, friendly, and amazingly active environment. It will be the social norm, and I can't imagine why anyone would seek to change it.

Not everyone is going to agree that their child should take part in this "amazingly active environment" because they disagree with this or that policy or person.

So what happens to them? What do you do?


The question is of course, do you have a right to STOP the child from taking up such an active role in society? The answer is, and always should be no, they are a separate human being with their own interests and freedom -- no matter how much your current system picks out an arbitrary age and calls you a "minor" until then, under the whim of your parents, that doesn't mean there's some magical age where all the sudden you grow into your rights. All humans, regardless of any factor, including age, are afforded the rights NOT to be subjugated and restricted by another individuals whim.

I tend to agree but my question still stands.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:26 PM

Go up to a mother and tell her you're taking her child because it's "best for society".

Just because you hate your own parents, and probably vice versa, does not mean all children will be glad to be rid of their parents, and vice versa.

Like novelgentry said it wouldn't be a case of stealing the child away from the mother, it would be more like a boarding school situation. Secondly, lol i don't hate my own parents and i'm curious as to whether or not they hate me.

Perhaps its your fear of change what's really crazy.
What happens with people who choose to homeschool their children?

[rice349]

What happens with people who choose to homeschool their children?

If they knew what was best for their children they wouldn't haha! seriously though

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 03:46 PM

What happens with people who choose to homeschool their children?

If they knew what was best for their children they wouldn't haha! seriously though
Please answer the question.

[rice349]

To answer the question, they won't really have a choice...sometimes certain rights have to be cast aside in the name of the working class.

[NovelGentry]

None of which addresses the central question: It's been advocated that parents not be allowed to instill religious beliefs in their children.

Even parents of public school students instill religious beliefs in their children.

So, how do you enforce your regulation that parents not be allowed to instill religious beliefs?

It's a very suggestive reasoning. I also find it strange that the public face would be completely atheist and not have any influence over the child's thinking when compared to the idea of the parent instilling these beliefs.

Let me first point out -- there is no way for one to really tell if this is happening.

If it IS happening -- let me then point out it was made aware, and if it was made aware, it must have cropped up in a public situation.

Again, I have no issue if people want to hold religious beliefs privately. The problem I have is when you slide them into the public domain, and further, encorporate them into the full public landscape. It should also be pointed out, the idea that a religious organization could OWN a church is preposterous when private property goes out the window. So what you're left with in terms of public representation is effectively nill. Could peole use a public building for essentially private worship? it contradicts... catch my drift?

Again, if it comes out, there is an obvious public face to it, in which case the most minor punishment would probably be little more than a frown from the community. You're not in the red, that is, in a position to really go down unless you are indeed 1) forcing something upon somoene else 2) exploiting someone else... even if they "contractually" agreed. 3) or directly harming another person, etc...

Other than that it is effectively communal distaste.... you take whatever risk you want in terms of making your religion blatant -- what action the community decides to take is what will be taken. (Stop thinking execution; try and be realistic when you think about the actual social form an ideals this new society would have).


Because it's your choice. Democracy includes the right not to vote and not to participate.

Indeed it does, but a childs right not to participate is not the same as a parent actually restricting them from participating. It has to essentially be left up to the child, regardless of how you may not think they are capable of making the right decision, the point is, they are making their own decision. If the child wants to isolate himself from society and practice satanism -- let him... just keep it the hell out of the public spectrum.


Do you propose forcing people to be involved? How?

No, but I cannot see why someeone wouldn't care to be. If indeed someone is not involved in a community they would probably be in essence but off from that community in all normal terms. They become the person no one really likes or understands.


But again, do you force people to get their kids involved? If they don't, what do you do?

Again, no one is forced to be involved, except if you consider peer pressure a force -- which I suppose it is, just not an absolute one. What we are doing, however, is permitting the possibility of stopping them from getting involved if indeed they want to.


I thought you said in the other thread that children should be free from having such philosophies forced upon them.

It's not being forced. Again, something of a peer pressure at the most. I do quite a fine job of ignoring peer pressure and cultural norms in the current society, I see no reason why you wouldn't have similar "freaks" then. We're not going to take them out back and whip them -- the point is, society will be geared towards that kind of involvement, thus those who refran from it will appear strange.


Should parents be allowed to sit their children down after school and teach them the bible?

And this is where you see it's not going much farther, in fact, it is you who is not seeing how far this side is going. "Should they be able to sit them down..." what do you mean by that? "Sit down boy I want to teach you something?" "But I want to go play with..." "I said sit!" -- that is no different than something of a forced instillation. If the child wants to actually sit there and learn it, I doubt they need you to teach it, literacy will be quite widespread, and of course they could then discuss it with you. But again, keep it private.


These contradict.

Which is it?

Why don't you just admit that you think children should be brought up with values that match yours?

But they are not contradiction. Indeed the first is quite an opinion of mine. I believe people should be brought up to be real *valid* members of their community -- in terms of democracy and work and play and every aspect. For me that is something that SHOULD happen at a very young age. But I cannot force it, nor can anyone -- again, I don't see this as NOT happening with the way society is geared. Kids are curious, they don't want to be stuck in a house all day listening to just what their parents say. People are going to have different mindsets, try to understand that.

As much as I want them to, even if I did not, this is the nature of socialized production and communist society -- it is an aspect of our every day life, no different than meeting people outside on the street, in a cafe, within your workplace, etc.


I agree but I don't see how that can be forced

Again, it's not forced. There's no compulsory voting, if indeed the community decides to let children vote at a young enough age, etc. The idea is that that is the NORM, it is forced no more on you than the current system forces you to know what MTV is -- it's simply the way society is, it's what drives it, it would be the culture. Again, try and envision the centuries that pass with this consciousness.


Not everyone is going to agree that their child should take part in this "amazingly active environment" because they disagree with this or that policy or person.

You do not OWN your child. You do not decide for them. So whether they agree that the child they happened to birth should or shouldn't listen to what bob does or doesn't want to say, it's not up to them, nor is it up to bob. It's up to the kid who's gonna be listening.

You're still thinking in terms of "their child" and ownership. You truly act as if a human being can be owned by anyone and then all the sudden at 18 they are emancipated. Are you that stuck inside what bourgeois society has pushed you to believe? You believe it's all up to the parents until 18? Why 18? What makes 18 so special? Cause that's the *law*? Well under communism it's gonna be the *law* that from the moment you are born you are free.


I tend to agree but my question still stands

Your question is still based on however many years you've sat through bourgeois society. You must understand, I don't think like you, in the least. For me to even pretend I think a person can be owned and controlled up until a certain age, and that is is "their" (that is the parent's) decision to decide what "their child" has the right and freedom to do... bleh, just fucking sick.

I hear a lot of shit about individual rights and how communism is an afront on freedom bullshit coming from the right on this site, and yet you're stuck in a mindset where you can't even realize the blatant afront to freedom within your own societal norms. Like I said, I'm the weird kid in this society... I'd be quite normal in a communist society -- cause it's strange to be atheist, and it's strange to talk politics, and it's strange not to want mtv, and it's strange to have the same pair of sneaker-boots for nearly 3 years. Well fuck what's strange here. Here sickens me... here is a world where the child is owned by the parent until they reach a magical number * 365.25 days -- here is a place where if you don't work for someone under their terms with no meaningful room for negotiation, you die... here sickens me.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:19 PM
To answer the question, they won't really have a choice...sometimes certain rights have to be cast aside in the name of the working class.
Wow.

As you come to take my children away, I will be certain to shout "viva la revolution!".


I wonder if in a few years when you have children, if you'll still be open to the idea that the society should be able to take them away because you're thinking of raising them in a manner in which the revolutionary leaders disagree.

[NovelGentry]

As you come to take my children away, I will be certain to shout "viva la revolution!".


I wonder if in a few years when you have children, if you'll still be open to the idea that the society should be able to take them away because you're thinking of raising them in a manner in which the revolutionary leaders disagree.

Mind you rice here is taking a key out of Stalin's broken whatever you want to call it...

And this is the point I made elsewhere -- we've all got different ideas how to shift a society towards communism, from extremely decentralized/libertarian to extremely centralized/authoritarian. But again, communism itself is easily defined: classless, stateless, moneyless, ... (the static properties of communism do not change) -- and these never have applied to any of the examples you and the rest of the right pulls here. Whether or not we agree something is socialist or not is another question altogether.

[t_wolves_fan]

It's a very suggestive reasoning. I also find it strange that the public face would be completely atheist and not have any influence over the child's thinking when compared to the idea of the parent instilling these beliefs.

But remember you said in the other thread that you're opposed to children being exposed to suggestive reasoning.


Let me first point out -- there is no way for one to really tell if this is happening.

Um, yes there is and it's quite simple. They're called "after school groups". There are also other easy methods such as polls or surveys.


Again, I have no issue if people want to hold religious beliefs privately.

But you go on to say that there is no private domain. How convenient.


The problem I have is when you slide them into the public domain, and further, encorporate them into the full public landscape.

Easy question: Would people be allowed to stand on the corner and read the bible out loud?


It should also be pointed out, the idea that a religious organization could OWN a church is preposterous when private property goes out the window. So what you're left with in terms of public representation is effectively nill. Could peole use a public building for essentially private worship? it contradicts... catch my drift?

Yes, I catch your drift and it is frightening. You "have no problem" with people excercising religious beliefs so long as it is in the only private domain you'd allow, which is apparently people's brains. That sounds a hell of a lot like 1984 to me.

Second it leaves a whole host of other "private" decisions open to public debate. If the public has a right to regulate how religious you are in your allotted living quarters then why not your political activities? Your sexual activities? Your own personal activities?

Your stance here is scary as hell.


Again, if it comes out, there is an obvious public face to it, in which case the most minor punishment would probably be little more than a frown from the community. You're not in the red, that is, in a position to really go down unless you are indeed 1) forcing something upon somoene else 2) exploiting someone else... even if they "contractually" agreed. 3) or directly harming another person, etc...

What if the local community doesn't think like you do, in fact people of like-religious beliefs set up their own community.


Other than that it is effectively communal distaste.... you take whatever risk you want in terms of making your religion blatant -- what action the community decides to take is what will be taken. (Stop thinking execution; try and be realistic when you think about the actual social form an ideals this new society would have).

You're speaking for the community here.

How do you intend to influence people's opinion to the point the vast majority of them become atheist?


Because it's your choice. Democracy includes the right not to vote and not to participate.


Indeed it does, but a childs right not to participate is not the same as a parent actually restricting them from participating. It has to essentially be left up to the child, regardless of how you may not think they are capable of making the right decision, the point is, they are making their own decision.

How do you intend to enforce this?



Again, no one is forced to be involved, except if you consider peer pressure a force -- which I suppose it is, just not an absolute one. What we are doing, however, is permitting the possibility of stopping them from getting involved if indeed they want to.

Why is your "peer-pressure" so much better than pressure exerted by a parent? How is that really any different from the ideoligical pressure you claimed in another thread you want children to be free from?


I thought you said in the other thread that children should be free from having such philosophies forced upon them.


It's not being forced. Again, something of a peer pressure at the most.

Oh wow, what a great distinction. You do realize how much peer pressure influences young children, right?

Again, how does this differ from a parent teaching his child religious values, when that teaching does not involve physical abuse?


And this is where you see it's not going much farther, in fact, it is you who is not seeing how far this side is going. "Should they be able to sit them down..." what do you mean by that? "Sit down boy I want to teach you something?" "But I want to go play with..." "I said sit!" -- that is no different than something of a forced instillation.

So would parents be allowed any form of discipline?


If the child wants to actually sit there and learn it, I doubt they need you to teach it, literacy will be quite widespread, and of course they could then discuss it with you. But again, keep it private.

You just said there is no such thing as privacy because nobody owns the property on which they are having their religious discussion, leaving it open to action by the public.



But they are not contradiction. Indeed the first is quite an opinion of mine. I believe people should be brought up to be real *valid* members of their community -- in terms of democracy and work and play and every aspect. For me that is something that SHOULD happen at a very young age. But I cannot force it, nor can anyone -- again, I don't see this as NOT happening with the way society is geared. Kids are curious, they don't want to be stuck in a house all day listening to just what their parents say. People are going to have different mindsets, try to understand that.

You do realize you're simply replacing the religious parents' pressure with your own, right? You're simply assuming the community will think like you do and then claiming it'd be "the community" that raises the child, not you, as if the difference makes it so much better anyway.

What if the majority of people don't think like you? How do you influence them to think like you do?



Again, it's not forced. There's no compulsory voting, if indeed the community decides to let children vote at a young enough age, etc. The idea is that that is the NORM, it is forced no more on you than the current system forces you to know what MTV is -- it's simply the way society is, it's what drives it, it would be the culture. Again, try and envision the centuries that pass with this consciousness.

So again, you're simply replacing religious NORMs with your own.


You do not OWN your child. You do not decide for them. So whether they agree that the child they happened to birth should or shouldn't listen to what bob does or doesn't want to say, it's not up to them, nor is it up to bob. It's up to the kid who's gonna be listening.

Great. So when my kid wants to go play with the drug dealers down the street, I can't tell him "no". When my 3-year-old wants to go play hide and seek on the freeway, I'm to tell her that it's a decision that's entirely up to her. When my 2-year old wants to eat frosting all day instead of vegetables, I leave it up to him.

Do you realize how people grow up to be when they have absolutely no discipline in their life?


You're still thinking in terms of "their child" and ownership. You truly act as if a human being can be owned by anyone and then all the sudden at 18 they are emancipated. Are you that stuck inside what bourgeois society has pushed you to believe? You believe it's all up to the parents until 18? Why 18? What makes 18 so special? Cause that's the *law*? Well under communism it's gonna be the *law* that from the moment you are born you are free.

I think when I have a child I will raise them by your standards. As soon as she is able to crawl, I will simply let her crawl out the door.

"You're on your own now, kid!"

What a great parent that would make me, right?


I tend to agree but my question still stands


Your question is still based on however many years you've sat through bourgeois society. You must understand, I don't think like you, in the least. For me to even pretend I think a person can be owned and controlled up until a certain age, and that is is "their" (that is the parent's) decision to decide what "their child" has the right and freedom to do... bleh, just fucking sick.

I hear a lot of shit about individual rights and how communism is an afront on freedom bullshit coming from the right on this site, and yet you're stuck in a mindset where you can't even realize the blatant afront to freedom within your own societal norms. Like I said, I'm the weird kid in this society... I'd be quite normal in a communist society -- cause it's strange to be atheist, and it's strange to talk politics, and it's strange not to want mtv, and it's strange to have the same pair of sneaker-boots for nearly 3 years. Well fuck what's strange here. Here sickens me... here is a world where the child is owned by the parent until they reach a magical number * 365.25 days -- here is a place where if you don't work for someone under their terms with no meaningful room for negotiation, you die... here sickens me.

So you feel the need to reorganize society based on your own personal opinion?

Do you get along with your own parents, by chance?

[NovelGentry]

But remember you said in the other thread that you're opposed to children being exposed to suggestive reasoning.

You wanted to know how one would prevent a parent from instilling these ideas? No?

This is not a battle for the kids mind. If anything the parent would share very similar ideals already to the rest of us.


Um, yes there is and it's quite simple. They're called "after school groups". There are also other easy methods such as polls or surveys.

That may be well and true in capitalist society. But it would remain very difficult fo tell if it is happening in a communist society, as such religious after school programs or even polls on religious beliefs would not be present in public. And that is my point, even if a parent was doing it in communist society (or for that matter doing it one on one in capitalist society) there's no way to really tell flat out unless you directly question the person.


But you go on to say that there is no private domain. How convenient.

Of course there is private domain, there's always private domain in that sense. You're confusing the Private term here. I'm not talking about Private in terms of Privacy, that will always exist -- if for no other reason than that no one can read your mind. And there will always be "private places" where no one is around. What I do mean by no private domain though, in the original statement, which is what you're inquiring about, is that there will be no private property, there will be no private domain in the form of a building, there will be no privately owned place where religious beliefs are allowed to flourish.

The lack of private porperty does not mean you cannot find privacy -- and as I pointed out in another post, any curteous person should have the decency to knock before entering the house you're living in. Do you not knock on the door of the bathroom if you know someone may be in there? Even if it IS your own house? Or do you just go barging in?


Easy question: Would people be allowed to stand on the corner and read the bible out loud?

I don't see why not. There is a point when you've gone from simply saying something to actually putting that statement into action, that is, in preaching it. In simply stating something you are not pushing this belief on another. However stop for a minute and look at the nauture of the chruch existing as a private domain. If this was the case, worker's would say for instance, build a church. This curch is then holyized or whatever and then becomes that particular church sect's private property. The issue here is of course the labor of the man who build the church was subjugated and is not returned to him. The labor of those that sustained his life, has not been returned through the labor he made which was possible thorugh their own. You have thus, re-introduced an exploitation.

The subjugation of man by man comes in other forms too, however. While you may simply read a bible, or any book for that matter, out loud or in quiet, if you press that onto another -- you run into a problem. So the minute I start seeing someone telling someone to accept Jesus into their hearts, there's an issue -- a big issue.

When you impress these ideas, including the ones in our follow up question, religion, sex, politics... when you actually push these on to other people -- there is a problem -- when you do it with force or by maintaining private property -- it increases 10 fold. Think about a case of a church, locking out homeless men until they accept god and repent their sins. Indeed all churches must be turned over.

Just like prostitution must be ended -- what preciesly would you subjugate sucha person with, if indeed you had no private property?

In short, what you do in your own time, what you discuss with friends, or even openly with others, that is an issue between whoever's there to hear it. If there you are reading the bible in public and a man is over on the bench reading a paper to himself and he asks you to stop, I would suspect you would do so. If you do not? Not sure -- depends on the company you keep I guess.

I would perosnally like to see a situation where all religous talk is banned, but I'm not everyone in the democracy. Why? For obvious personal distaste and the stupidity I think it embodies.

BTW, in case you're going to bring up that the decisions of the majority are enforced on those who disagree, realize, it is by their choice that they remain a part of whatever it is community they are being pushed with. People are free to leave.


What if the local community doesn't think like you do, in fact people of like-religious beliefs set up their own community.

I think this was amply answered before. Democracy above all.


You're speaking for the community here.

How do you intend to influence people's opinion to the point the vast majority of them become atheist?

I don't, and this is a fundamental misunderstanding you still hold. I don't intend to convince anyone of anything. I intend the change in material conditions and material consciousness to do so.

Without material consciousness and class consciousness I am certain any revolution that would exist would be half ass and would never get off the ground. Thankfully I also believe both can and do come into existence with the material change -- as there will be a time when people are forced to see their relationship to their class through that material reality.

I firmly believe, if you have both of these, it is impossible for you to put stock in god -- well, material consciousness alone pretty much ensures that, so I guess you could cut it down to one.

Some people have one or another, I feel very strongly that both is needed for what I would consider revolutionary consciousness -- at least that which would progress us to socialism. Strong material consciousness with no class consciousness or a lagging class consciousness because of underdeveloped material conditions can be quite dangerous.

So again, I don't intend to -- I intend to see that they will become so themselves once they get to this point.


How do you intend to enforce this?

How do you enforce against kidnapping or willfull neglect/assault?

There would have to be some physical action, or at least the threat of physical action to actually be able to restrict someone. Either thaat and they are there wilfully, or they simply can't actually move..


Why is your "peer-pressure" so much better than pressure exerted by a parent? How is that really any different from the ideoligical pressure you claimed in another thread you want children to be free from?

peer pressure is far more subtle than what I talked about earlier. Pere pressure is not a conscious attempt to push your will upon someone, as such, it's unlikely peer pressure would ever work for a single parent or even multiple parents trying to push this ideology onto a child, as opposed to the way the whole community acts. I have no problem with peer pressure from the parent, or from the rest of society. I have problems with forms of direct and conscious mental pressure.

It's the difference between someone who quits smoking lighting up just because their friends lit up and lighting up because they're friends are saying "Hey, don't you wish you had a cigarette right now." -- and yes, there is a very big difference. This is in essence what I was referring to when I said suggestive reasoning, however, I was only talking about the parent before. That is to say, there would be peer pressure on how to raise your child.

This is something that is unavoidable within society period. It comes with the baggage of being social creatures.


Oh wow, what a great distinction. You do realize how much peer pressure influences young children, right?

Again, how does this differ from a parent teaching his child religious values, when that teaching does not involve physical abuse?

I'm not talking about DARE peer pressure, the type of shit where Billy's 12 friends all tell him to try smoking a joint. I'm talking about the general pressure we all feel to fit in. That is indeed peer pressure, even if a far more subtle form than what DARE would want you to focus on.

And in that sense, yes I do realize how much it influences young children. In fact, that is exactly the point of saying there is a societal raising. We all learn by watching others, ESPECIALLY at a young age.

If someone sees people practicing religious beliefs and becomes interested, that's different than someone walking up to them and saying "Hey, I was reading about this Jesus guy, you should really check him out. If not, you won't get into heaven."

Again, see the difference?

What is further questionable, however, is whether or not one should be practicing religion in front of children. It would seem the violate the idea that you are doing it in private.


So would parents be allowed any form of discipline?

"allowed any forms of discipline" ?? If indeed you want to call it that, they are allowed the same form as the whole of the community. If indeed children are raised by the community they are raised by their parents too. You seem to find this mutually exclusive, and you do this with a lot of terms.

You assume that if they are raised by society they have to be ripped away from their parents and their parents can have no influence on them.

Why do you think along these lines? Do you really think communism is some kind of satanic ideology created by heathens to destroy the church?

There is a distinction between what we can consider our private and public dispositions, and I think it's safe to say that asking someone to hinder their private dispositions is not that difficult to do.

Do you really see that much difference between physical abuse or attacks and verbal abuse or attacks directed at making someone adopt a strictly personal belief as bein that different?

You seem quite alright with saying parent's shouldn't chain their kid to a chair and tell them Jesus is their savior. But why should the really be able to tell them in the first place. Jesus is their savior, not the kids... and let them keep him.



You just said there is no such thing as privacy because nobody owns the property on which they are having their religious discussion, leaving it open to action by the public.

Again, please don't confuse privacy with private property. Privacy is shutting your shades and locking the bedroom door while you get dressed without the fear that there's a camera somewhere -- private property is about owning the room you're in.


You do realize you're simply replacing the religious parents' pressure with your own, right? You're simply assuming the community will think like you do and then claiming it'd be "the community" that raises the child, not you, as if the difference makes it so much better anyway.

No, I'm not replacing the two. I'm offering a persistent means by which children are raised WITHOUT people telling them what to become.


What if the majority of people don't think like you? How do you influence them to think like you do?

I can debate and vote the issue and try and change it democratically, or I can try going to a different commune.

If the majority of the people of the whole nation or the whole world don't think like me, then I'll deal with it. -- I seem to be doing OK right now.


So again, you're simply replacing religious NORMs with your own.

I believe these will be the norms, as I have previously stated. I'm not saying the have to be the norms. I believe they will be.


Great. So when my kid wants to go play with the drug dealers down the street, I can't tell him "no". When my 3-year-old wants to go play hide and seek on the freeway, I'm to tell her that it's a decision that's entirely up to her. When my 2-year old wants to eat frosting all day instead of vegetables, I leave it up to him.

Do you realize how people grow up to be when they have absolutely no discipline in their life?

Well under capitalism you have every right to take part in this nonsense, and in some ways I think it's OK to. The problem is, under capitalism we're not able to grow in freedom like one would be able to under communism. Everything is different here -- even Education despite being "public." The form that things take under capitalism is perposterous, and to think that a child is free under capitalism is completly gooney to begin with -- at least when talking about any working class child.

For this reason what you propose might seem to make a lot of sense in this type of society.

Mine you, there is also a big difference between discipline and trying to tell a child what to become. Discipline in itself is designed as negative reinforcement, this is what you DON'T do. Don't be lick wall sockets, don't stick your hand on the stove, etc..etc. All perfectly good and valid learning experiences. But yet again, these also have an extremely public and open context, as opposed to even negitive religion or sexual enforcement based on your preferences. And of course positive reinforcements as well.

Again, see the difference? Apparently not.


I think when I have a child I will raise them by your standards. As soon as she is able to crawl, I will simply let her crawl out the door.

"You're on your own now, kid!"

What a great parent that would make me, right?

I don't pretend these "standards" as you call them make any sense in a system other than communism. Indeed crime and danger is rampant in this society, it should never be the type of place where a kid gets left alone.


So you feel the need to reorganize society based on your own personal opinion?

Do you get along with your own parents, by chance?

I feel:
a) this is where society is headed in the future, regardless of what I feel or want, and regardless of me since I'll be dead
b) this is the most positive outlook for the social human, as we return to our true nature as both social beings and as individuals
c) sad that people like you cannot grasp that out of simple fear of losing your bourgeois ideals

On the issue of my parents:

My father is dead and my mother and I get along quite well.

[rice349]

Here are alternative answers to some of t_wolves_fan's questions...


Easy question: Would people be allowed to stand on the corner and read the bible out loud?

No


What if the local community doesn't think like you do, in fact people of like-religious beliefs set up their own community.

Religion wouldn't be tolerated period--christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, animism, jainism, buddhism, etc. Community planning boards would plan communities, not individuals.


How do you intend to influence people's opinion to the point the vast majority of them become atheist?

While converting the existing population might prove rather difficult, the real hope would lie in future generations that would be raised atheist, be denied all relgious influence, and taught the evil and oppression and sheer ignorance of placing blind faith in something that cannot be scientifically and empirically proved. Emphasis on materialist and empiricist thinking. Even nihilism is preferable than having a religious faith.


How do you intend to enforce this?

Police.


So would parents be allowed any form of discipline?

Somewhat. While the children are in their presence there's not much we could do to stop them; however, we ultimately hope that the children will want to break away from the traditional idea of family, and see live in a more communal way in which biological parents become just one of many people who love and care for them.



You do realize you're simply replacing the religious parents' pressure with your own, right? You're simply assuming the community will think like you do and then claiming it'd be "the community" that raises the child, not you, as if the difference makes it so much better anyway.

I don't have a problem with the tactics reactionary religious parents use, its the actual message that's trying to be instilled that matters. Our message doesn't involve mysterious invisible men, or that the world was created in 7 days. The means to a way are irrelevant as long as the goal at the end is in the best interest for the working class/public.

[rice349]

Here are alternative answers to some of t_wolves_fan's questions...


Easy question: Would people be allowed to stand on the corner and read the bible out loud?

No


What if the local community doesn't think like you do, in fact people of like-religious beliefs set up their own community.

Religion wouldn't be tolerated period--christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, animism, jainism, buddhism, etc. Community planning boards would plan communities, not individuals.


How do you intend to influence people's opinion to the point the vast majority of them become atheist?

While converting the existing population might prove rather difficult, the real hope would lie in future generations that would be raised atheist, be denied all relgious influence, and taught the evil and oppression and sheer ignorance of placing blind faith in something that cannot be scientifically and empirically proved. Emphasis on materialist and empiricist thinking. Even nihilism is preferable than having a religious faith.


How do you intend to enforce this?

Police.


So would parents be allowed any form of discipline?

Somewhat. While the children are in their presence there's not much we could do to stop them; however, we ultimately hope that the children will want to break away from the traditional idea of family, and see live in a more communal way in which biological parents become just one of many people who love and care for them.



You do realize you're simply replacing the religious parents' pressure with your own, right? You're simply assuming the community will think like you do and then claiming it'd be "the community" that raises the child, not you, as if the difference makes it so much better anyway.

I don't have a problem with the tactics reactionary religious parents use, its the actual message that's trying to be instilled that matters. Our message doesn't involve mysterious invisible men, or that the world was created in 7 days. The means to a way are irrelevant as long as the goal at the end is in the best interest for the working class/public.

[rice349]

Here are alternative answers to some of t_wolves_fan's questions...


Easy question: Would people be allowed to stand on the corner and read the bible out loud?

No


What if the local community doesn't think like you do, in fact people of like-religious beliefs set up their own community.

Religion wouldn't be tolerated period--christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, animism, jainism, buddhism, etc. Community planning boards would plan communities, not individuals.


How do you intend to influence people's opinion to the point the vast majority of them become atheist?

While converting the existing population might prove rather difficult, the real hope would lie in future generations that would be raised atheist, be denied all relgious influence, and taught the evil and oppression and sheer ignorance of placing blind faith in something that cannot be scientifically and empirically proved. Emphasis on materialist and empiricist thinking. Even nihilism is preferable than having a religious faith.


How do you intend to enforce this?

Police.


So would parents be allowed any form of discipline?

Somewhat. While the children are in their presence there's not much we could do to stop them; however, we ultimately hope that the children will want to break away from the traditional idea of family, and see live in a more communal way in which biological parents become just one of many people who love and care for them.



You do realize you're simply replacing the religious parents' pressure with your own, right? You're simply assuming the community will think like you do and then claiming it'd be "the community" that raises the child, not you, as if the difference makes it so much better anyway.

I don't have a problem with the tactics reactionary religious parents use, its the actual message that's trying to be instilled that matters. Our message doesn't involve mysterious invisible men, or that the world was created in 7 days. The means to a way are irrelevant as long as the goal at the end is in the best interest for the working class/public.

[rice349]

Here are alternative answers to some of t_wolves_fan's questions...


Easy question: Would people be allowed to stand on the corner and read the bible out loud?

No


What if the local community doesn't think like you do, in fact people of like-religious beliefs set up their own community.

Religion wouldn't be tolerated period--christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, animism, jainism, buddhism, etc. Community planning boards would plan communities, not individuals.


How do you intend to influence people's opinion to the point the vast majority of them become atheist?

While converting the existing population might prove rather difficult, the real hope would lie in future generations that would be raised atheist, be denied all relgious influence, and taught the evil and oppression and sheer ignorance of placing blind faith in something that cannot be scientifically and empirically proved. Emphasis on materialist and empiricist thinking. Even nihilism is preferable than having a religious faith.


How do you intend to enforce this?

Police.


So would parents be allowed any form of discipline?

Somewhat. While the children are in their presence there's not much we could do to stop them; however, we ultimately hope that the children will want to break away from the traditional idea of family, and see live in a more communal way in which biological parents become just one of many people who love and care for them.



You do realize you're simply replacing the religious parents' pressure with your own, right? You're simply assuming the community will think like you do and then claiming it'd be "the community" that raises the child, not you, as if the difference makes it so much better anyway.

I don't have a problem with the tactics reactionary religious parents use, its the actual message that's trying to be instilled that matters. Our message doesn't involve mysterious invisible men, or that the world was created in 7 days. The means to a way are irrelevant as long as the goal at the end is in the best interest for the working class/public.

[NovelGentry]

Religion wouldn't be tolerated period--christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, animism, jainism, buddhism, etc. Community planning boards would plan communities, not individuals.

No doubt, but there's a difference between actively making the community about religion, and simply tolerating people having religious beliefs.

Where I fall out is this. We have two very different stages, socialism and communism. To assume this will even be an issue under communism is foolish, and thus it's pointless to even talk about. The whole reason socialism exists is so that society progresses towards communism and overcomes the issues that remain from earlier socio-economic/political periods. Everything from religious beliefs to the destruction of classes.

Even IF it was met with no opposition, the kind of oppression you propose to religion is not feasible. There's a lot bigger things to worry about than ensuring people aren't reading their bible when they come home from work. Even more, there are a lot bigger things to worry about than ensuring people aren't reading the bible in public, silently or openly.

There's an obvious difference between reading and preaching it, and this is a difference that would be met with certain resolve by the people's themselves. Religion should not be a matter for the state to worry about, period. It is a daily social aspect which will be abolished along with other social characteristics as our material condtions themselves change.


While converting the existing population might prove rather difficult

Not difficult. Impossible. Even in thinking you have a non-lethal means to do this (remember, these people are your working class too)... for example, reeducation of sorts -- you're going to run into the problem that you can't be watching these people 24/7, and if you are, that's fucked up. Even if you were to watch them 24/7 there is no guarantee to you that they are not actually thinking about religion or praying to themselves.

You say quite openly that we will be concerned with community issues, then be concerned with community issue. Religion is an individual issue -- and as such it should not even be an issue for the state, or even for community democracies.

The problem is of course when religion has the public influence in the community. And this is where I get my side. The minute religion starts influencing the community outside of individuals is the minute you see religion a) affecting political views and decisions -- thereby losing all objective reasoning when thinking of the BEST option b) actually exploiting people on these religious matters.

What must happen is religion must become a complete non-existent thing in public life -- indeed if we are focused on the community and not individuals then why worry about destroying individual preferences?


the real hope would lie in future generations that would be raised atheist

Indeed. But I was raised a Christian and I'm Atheist now. See the problem? You can raise them, however you want, and they will still end up however THEY want.

There was no "atheist influence" for me, aside from normal scientific evidence that went away from all I was told when I was younger. And this is my point, if you remove it from the public life, and children are in a position to be raised equally by all members of society -- you don't lead down the path of religion.

You are actively stomping it out by actively making it a non-issue. This combined with scientific advancement and the changes in material condition is not likely to leave anyone thinking "Gee... I wonder if God would allow stem cell research." -- and if they do think that, there's nothing we can do about it because we don't even know they did think it. What we CAN do, is prevent that question from actually rising within the community realm itself -- For example, coming up within public debate or as a voting issue, thereby removing the possibility that such things have community influence and in essence regulating it TO that individual. If that individual wants to vote a certain way because of what they feel -- let them, but their personal beliefs should not be laid out as if issues that everyone (including those who don't share those beliefs) need to take into consideration. Nor should their public beliefs lead to physical consideration (i.e. work) from the community. No building churches, fixing churches, PRINTING bibles, etc..etc.

These cappies that come on here like to scream freedom of religion from the rooftops, but never stop to think that the minute religion influences what happens in someone else's life (without their will) -- you've taken that person's freedom of religion away. The disability for a country like the US to be OK with gay marriage is in fact the inability for gay peole to have freedom of religion. The reasons for it still not being legal are only founded in religion, and it is other people's religious beliefs which uphold that they cannot be married, and are enforced by the state. -- So while no one in the US can force you to be a Fundie Christian for example, they sure as hell can force you to stand by Fundie Christian principles... and that is a problem.

This is what we should seek to destroy -- and in doing so you will see religion itself fade away.


and taught the evil

I love hearing materialists/anti-religion people using a term like "evil" seriously. Your subjective reasoning here is no better than that of the religions you oppose. Indeed, however, you do go on to save yourself with more objective reasons.


oppression

If you abolish the right for religion to oppress people for example by overcoming the gay marriage issue I noted above, then religion has no conduit to be oppressive. There is no more argument left to say that religion is oppressive if the only person that a religious person can oppress is themselves.


ignorance

Agreed -- but combating ignorance is not something that's forced. As much as we would like people not to be ignorant, we can't force them ot understand, learn, and find this way of thinking.

Activiely stifling religion on an individual level (which is indeed what you propose to do) is no different from the "ignorance" perspective than actively trying to stifle someone's disinterest in sewing. Indeed a person can be extremely ignorant towards sewing -- but you're in no position to give them the interest to learn about it.

Of course religion is a far my reaching aspect of life than sewing -- but if it is an ignorance it is only a larger version of ignorance which encompasses many aspects, and if you cannot force these single aspects you cannot force the whole simply based on the name you give it: religion.

If someone wants to remain ignorant of scientific evidence which destroys a religious person's argument, there's nothing you can do about it. You cannot force-educate people, at least not if you want any working form of society. And again, you argued earlier that focus should be on the community, so why should the state or the rest of community give a damn about the ignorance of a single individual? The answer is that they shouldn't -- they should have a really big problem, however, when that ignorance takes a public role and actually influences their lives.

[rice349]

I love hearing materialists/anti-religion people using a term like "evil" seriously. Your subjective reasoning here is no better than that of the religions you oppose. Indeed, however, you do go on to save yourself with more objective reasons.

lol i used "evil" just for the sheer fun of it....

Also i know your response warrants a much better response than this novelgentry so when i get a chance i'll finish it up!

[Andy Bowden]

I don't think religion should be banned under socialism, and if parents want to teach their children the bible then thats their choice - what should not be allowed however is the effective melding of church and state, for example in Saudi Arabia, Iran - and to a lesser extent the relationship between the protestant-supremacist orange order in the 6 counties and the govt of the 6-county statelet.
Hello everyone by the way :D

[1936]

The whole point of this forum is beyond me.

The actions of one to condem hundreds?

[Andy Bowden]

the actions of one to condemn hundreds?

"I don't care what they say about us anyway. I don't care about that."

Ah Weezer :lol: ......

[Professor Moneybags]

I consider a system that allows any segment of it's population to go hungry more oppressive.


I consider a system that doesn't provide full free education from K to Graduate university as a basic human right to all it's citizens thus perpetuating social strata more oppressive.


I consider a system that allows any of it's citizenry to live on the street homeless more oppressive.


I consider a system that does not provide universal healthcare to all it's citizens more oppressive.

Oh sure. And forcing people at gunpoint to provide food, education, housing and healthcare to those who don't have any is no doubt "not oppressive".

[NovelGentry]

Oh sure. And forcing people at gunpoint to provide food, education, housing and healthcare to those who don't have any is no doubt "not oppressive".

No doubt the British thought it was oppressive when they were forced at gunpoint of their land across the atlantic too.

Either way, I'm not sure what system you're talking about that we promote that forces people at gunpoint to provide food, education, housing, and healthcare to shoe who don't have any.

I find it hilarious you think people who stand for working class emancipation would enslave workers.

[rice349]

The only ones who will truly be forced are those who wish to try and deter communism in a post-revolutionary society. This means that life will become increasingly unpleasant for reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, and the likes, for they will either submit to the all-powerful workers' totalitarian dictatorship, or be forced into exile or labor camps. There is way to much at stake to take a passive appraoch to these groups. I don't think this classifies as oppressive, and if it does i don't care, i think groups such as these pose a threat to humanity and the revolution and must be dealt with harshly and quickly.

As for force regarding the workers, the workers will be more than happy to contribute what they can to their comrades in the essence of comradeship and brother/sisterhood. Free from the oppression that forces them to sell their labor for the sake of "wage-slavery," a completely new mindset will overtake the working class (which at this point will no longer exist for their will be one and only 1 class!

[rice349]

The only ones who will truly be forced are those who wish to try and deter communism in a post-revolutionary society. This means that life will become increasingly unpleasant for reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, and the likes, for they will either submit to the all-powerful workers' totalitarian dictatorship, or be forced into exile or labor camps. There is way to much at stake to take a passive appraoch to these groups. I don't think this classifies as oppressive, and if it does i don't care, i think groups such as these pose a threat to humanity and the revolution and must be dealt with harshly and quickly.

As for force regarding the workers, the workers will be more than happy to contribute what they can to their comrades in the essence of comradeship and brother/sisterhood. Free from the oppression that forces them to sell their labor for the sake of "wage-slavery," a completely new mindset will overtake the working class (which at this point will no longer exist for their will be one and only 1 class!

[comrade_mufasa]

There will be no need to deal with counter-revolutionaries and reactionaries at all becouse the peoplw will look to those counter-revolutionaries and say "look we have homes we cant be kick out of, we have food no matter what, health care is free for all, education is free for all, and we have true freedom". So the counter-revolutionaries will be silenced becouse thier words will fall on deaf ears.

[Professor Moneybags]

No doubt the British thought it was oppressive when they were forced at gunpoint of their land across the atlantic too.

Piss poor anology.


Either way, I'm not sure what system you're talking about that we promote that forces people at gunpoint to provide food, education, housing, and healthcare to shoe who don't have any.

If these services become "rights", then I must be violating those rights by not providing you with them. I can then expect force to be used against me, can't I ?


I find it hilarious you think people who stand for working class emancipation would enslave workers.

You don't stand for working class emancipation (see above).

[rice349]

lol what you and the other capitalist reactionaries fail to realize Professor Moneybags is that we as communists don't really give a damn whether or not you understand nor accept our views. We're not advocating communism solely on the grounds of bringing peace and liberation to the working class; but to bring about a quick and decisive end to the mere existance of people like yourself. Communsim has several "masks," one is that of the liberator of the working class; another is that of the executioner of the criminals against the working class. Frankly, i don't care how scary and oppressive we become as long as we reach our goal i don't personally care if i'm knee-deep in the blood of every capitalist man, woman, child whatever.

Whatever the cost, whatever the means, it's all irrelevant. Communism is more than bringing equality and liberty to the proletariat, it's also bringing justice and sentencing to the bourgeoisie.


I can then expect force to be used against me, can't I ?

You could expect force used against you simply because you are a capitalist pig.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Mar 25 2005, 03:51 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Mar 25 2005, 03:51 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 03:46 PM

What happens with people who choose to homeschool their children?

If they knew what was best for their children they wouldn't haha! seriously though
Please answer the question. [/b]
You know, I think that if parents want to educate their children that is fine but during the week they still need to go to school.
All children should recieve a common education from school. Yes, the teachers may be idiots there, hey..the parents may be idiots at home school, but there is a whole other issue. School has a quality that over rides this issue...School is a check and balance system for life itself for a child.

A child who is being abused might consider it normal untill they go to school and see how other children act toward that concept. Then that is how they learn that it really isnt right.
There are simple things we know about life that we take for granted, but we would not really know them if it wasnt for socializing as children. That is very important and I think that all children deserve that opportunity in their development.

[Xvall]

Piss poor anology.

Hardly.

The American Revolutionaries were a group of people who felt that the British had unrightfully taken control of their communities and were misusing it, so they decided to declare that the communities were theirs, and killed the British if they tried to sieze it back.

We are a group of people who feel that the capitalists have unrightfully taken control of the means of production was well as control over things like food, universities, real estate, andd health care, and are misusing it, so we are going to declare that these things rightfully belong to the working class, and kill the capitalists who want to sieze it back.

How is this any different?

[Professor Moneybags]

We are a group of people who feel that the capitalists have unrightfully taken control of the means of production was well as control over things like food, universities, real estate, andd health care, and are misusing it, so we are going to declare that these things rightfully belong to the working class, and kill the capitalists who want to sieze it back.

First of all, how do you "take back" what was never yours in the first place ?

Secondly, why is their claim "unrightful" and your claim "rightful" ?


How is this any different?

The revolutionaries actually had their stuff taken from them. What's been taken from you ?

[Professor Moneybags]

I can then expect force to be used against me, can't I ?

You could expect force used against you simply because you are a capitalist pig.


A jungle somewhere must be missing a monkey.

[Xvall]

First of all, how do you "take back" what was never yours in the first place ?

Secondly, why is their claim "unrightful" and your claim "rightful" ?

The means of production do belong to the working class. They are constructed, maintained, and utilized by them - why should someone else control them?

Their claim is unrightful because they are using the working class for their own benefit, and taking away the product of the working class's labor. It's very simple.


The revolutionaries actually had their stuff taken from them. What's been taken from you ?

What has been taken from the working class was the final result of their labor — whatever they produced for their boss.

[Professor Moneybags]

The means of production do belong to the working class. They are constructed, maintained, and utilized by them - why should someone else control them?

Which means of production did you construct ? How about your work colleagues, which did they construct ?


What has been taken from the working class was the final result of their labor — whatever they produced for their boss.

They were working under contract. Nothing was taken.

[NovelGentry]

They were working under contract. Nothing was taken.

Ahh yes, the supposed right of freedom of contract. I've actually looked at the capitalist contract -- I know people just sign, but I've actually ready it.

It says (and I quote):


This contract hereby states that you will sign one of our contracts, or you will die. By chance that you do not sign this contract, and in turn sign a subsequent contract to give up your right to what your labor power produces, you have no other means of survival. If you intend to attempt to survive outside of this contract and all previously stated terms, you are no doubt infringing on the property of others and will be jailed for any one of the following crimes: theft, trespassing, fraud, extortion.

This contract is non-negotiable.


That's actually the first contract you sign when you go to get a job -- the second contract you sign is the contract that you agreed to uphold in the first contract. It too is non-negotiable, and it basically just lays out the terms of your exploitation by saying the terms of your "employment" and the rate at which they will fuck you over at in dollars per hour.

[Xvall]

Which means of production did you construct ? How about your work colleagues, which did they construct ?

Every means of production is constructed by the working class. Every power plant, factory, and assembly line is run and maintained by the workers, and not by the boss.


They were working under contract. Nothing was taken.

In this case, legislatively, the colonies were the property of the British Empire. So, the American colonists were working under contract as well. Nothing was taken from them, since the colonies belonged to Britain in the first place, and were ultimately the property of Britain.

[Professor Moneybags]

Every means of production is constructed by the working class. Every power plant, factory, and assembly line is run and maintained by the workers, and not by the boss.

Repeat :

Which means of production did you construct ? How about your work colleagues, which did they construct ? This should be easy enough to answer.


In this case, legislatively, the colonies were the property of the British Empire. So, the American colonists were working under contract as well.

No, they were being forced.


Nothing was taken from them, since the colonies belonged to Britain in the first place, and were ultimately the property of Britain.

Another collectivist who can't get used to the idea of individuals owning propterty, rather than dubiously-defined "classes".

[NovelGentry]

Another collectivist who can't get used to the idea of individuals owning propterty, rather than dubiously-defined "classes".

While I don't particularly agree the British example was the best, certainly it was not strictly private interests in the US, you must understand that individual ownership is indeed what defines the class. This is what the bourgeoisie has in common -- it is their ownership of these means of production that puts them in the position they are.

This is to say, it is for the sake of them having individual ownership, that they define a class.

However, there was a time too when the bourgeoisie "stole" the property of their oppressors.

So if you are to justify one, why do you not justify the other? -- I think that was the overall point he was trying to make.

How can you justify that these people today even own the things they have? It was all born out of the "theft" of the bourgeoisie as it existed centuries ago and fought against those who held land privately and provided no system where people had the "freedom/right of private property."

[Professor Moneybags]

That's actually the first contract you sign when you go to get a job -- the second contract you sign is the contract that you agreed to uphold in the first contract. It too is non-negotiable, and it basically just lays out the terms of your exploitation by saying the terms of your "employment" and the rate at which they will fuck you over at in dollars per hour.

The alternative to a contractual agreement being what, exactly ? If there is no trade by agreement, then the only alternative is trade by force.

Yes, you can scream your head off about being "forced" to work and moaning about "exploitation" and being "fucked over", but doesn't alter the fact that you're advocating rule by force and it's collorary, dictatorship.

[NovelGentry]

The alternative to a contractual agreement being what, exactly ?

This is the exact same question I have.

EDIT: What I mean by this, is what is my alternative for living if I don't wish to sign the one of the bourgeoisie's contracts?


but doesn't alter the fact that you're advocating rule by force and it's collorary, dictatorship.

I've never advocated such a thing for anyone other than those who force labor in our current society.

[Professor Moneybags]

The alternative to a contractual agreement being what, exactly ?

This is the exact same question I have.

EDIT: What I mean by this, is what is my alternative for living if I don't wish to sign the one of the bourgeoisie's contracts?

You could go and make your own living, but then no one is forcing you to live.


I've never advocated such a thing for anyone other than those who force labor in our current society.

Then what is your alternative to voluntary associations, if not involuntary ones ?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You could go and make your own living, but then no one is forcing you to live.

If you don't like capitalism, die.
Not a far cry from the truth.


Then what is your alternative to voluntary associations, if not involuntary ones ?

Truly voluntary.
In capitalism, we have no choice other than to exchange our labor for whatever the bosses think is fair. And it's never the accurate worth of the work.
We are essentially forced into giving our labor away at no benefit to us. This is something that nobody chooses to do.

[NovelGentry]

You could go and make your own living, but then no one is forcing you to live.

How? How can I go and "make my own living." What property do I own to grow food and build shelter on? Where exactly is this wonderful place?


Then what is your alternative to voluntary associations, if not involuntary ones ?

I'm not talking about voluntary associations. I'm trying to make it a point that the contractual agreements of capitalism are NOT voluntary. It is the ONLY option for the working class. We are born into this world with nothing, and by the grace of our families we are able to survive long enough that we can sign the contract, but there is no alternative to the contract other than death.

So, of course, we can choose WHICH boss we want, but we cannot choose to be free from the boss. Our freedom is lacking immensely.

What socialists/communists propose is removing the boss from the equation. You are not forced into contract, and the contract that does exist provides you equally with what you provide.

You are willing to admit society exists (it's rather difficult to deny) -- and it is also difficult to deny our role in that society and society's role towards us. Yet you seek to maintain the essence of man as an individual being, DESPITE, the glaring contradictions it has towards our social existence.

You effectively see that, despite living in society, you are not living through society. You refuse your relationship to those who make what you use, and you refuse their relationship of using what you make. You PRETEND that you are self-sustaining by arguing "I have paid for what I use/own." But this does not make you self-sustaining. Your money would mean little if there was nothing to buy.

What we propose is removing this foolish abstraction. Not only do we realize these relationships, we want to make them so obvious that no one can deny them and in doing so man is able to see his responsibility to society, even if he does not like it.

You work for money, so that you may consume what else is produced.

We work to produce, so that we may consume what is produced. (the most natural relationship that bares with it the full essence of our material existence, our need)

[rice349]

i don't have a problem admitting that after the fall of capitalism there will be certain things forced, particularly on the former-ruling caste. Forced labor does have its benefits, prison systems use it still.

We could make all religious persons, capitalists, bourgeois, reactionaries, nationalists, etc. perform forced labor until they are dead. Again, these people will more than likely take violent reaction towards the revolution so they are more than expendible.

Systematic suppression of these groups will not result in any sleep-loss for the masses. They serve no purpose other than be put to work building housing for the people they once spit on. Poetic justice at its best, no?

The thought that we have ot be pacifists or even non-agressors towards our enemies is a rather dangerous position to take. Communism is more than just liberation and equality for the working class, but also a means to an end of the bourgeois and capitalist thugs.

Gulags served an excellent purpose in the Soviet Union and with our own ingenuity and creativity we could perhaps surpass Stalin and create something even more useful, if not even more oppressive towards the capitalist pigs.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:06 AM
Gulags served an excellent purpose in the Soviet Union and with our own ingenuity and creativity we could perhaps surpass Stalin and create something even more useful, if not even more oppressive towards the capitalist pigs.
Like concentration camps? Or perhaps death camps? Why not just re-open Auschwitz?

Of course, it would only be a matter of time before YOU "got in the way" or became "too ambitious" for whoever was in power and suddenly found himself in one of those places.

[rice349]

Like concentration camps? Or perhaps death camps? Why not just re-open Auschwitz?

We're not basing oppression on ethnic grounds, that's the difference. - ethnicity never hurt anybody, however, greed does.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:41 AM

Like concentration camps? Or perhaps death camps? Why not just re-open Auschwitz?

We're not basing oppression on ethnic grounds, that's the difference. - ethnicity never hurt anybody, however, greed does.
It doesn't matter what you basing it on because it's STILL oppression and it's why you had a revolution in the first place -- to get rid of it. You can NEVER force people to think the same way you do. I suppose you'd kill any worker that fought alongside you but after the revolution had the audacity to THINK and DISAGREE with you.

Have you ever experienced totalitarianism first-hand?

[rice349]

Have you ever experienced totalitarianism first-hand?

No, but my family (up until the fall of the soviet union and the eastern-bloc) lived in the Socialist Republic of Georgia.

[Hiero]

So can anyone answer the first question, who was that?

When i first seen it i was going to come in here and ask the same thing.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by Wolnosc-[email protected] 29 2005, 01:48 AM
It doesn't matter what you basing it on because it's STILL oppression . . .
You know, I disagree strongly with Rice's post-revolutionary vision. I am an anarchist, and I abhore the ideas he proposes . . . but, isn't it hypocritical for anybody who defends the existing status quo to critique such a vision? The only difference that I can see is that Rice is being honest, whereas our current leaders hope nothing boils up from the memory hole, breaks through the hegemony, etc.

[NovelGentry]

You know, I disagree strongly with Rice's post-revolutionary vision. I am an anarchist, and I abhore the ideas he proposes . . . but, isn't it hypocritical for anybody who defends the existing status quo to critique such a vision? The only difference that I can see is that Rice is being honest, whereas our current leaders hope nothing boils up from the memory hole, breaks through the hegemony, etc.

Honest, indeed. But honest to Russia in 1917.

I, like rice, have no problem with the political suppression/oppression of the bourgeoisie -- I think the distinction must be clearly made, and I think action must be taken.

Howver, the initial suppression/oppression is largely consumed the minute you wrest a) their political power -- control of the state and b) their economic power -- control of the means of production. Physical opposition should be met with physical opposition, strong non-physicall opposition should be met with strong non-physical opposition. Whether or not rice feels ANY member of the bourgeoisie should be placed into a gulag is the point we might disagree on. Not sure of his position on that though.

It all comess down to how you seek to oppress their abilities, judging from Rices signature, he likes the concept of "no man no problem" -- that is, suppression of ideological or political opposition, regardless of form, is easiest and best met with the barrel of a gun.

It may be easiest, I'm just not so sure it's best when it comes to non-physical.

I believe the authoritarianism of Stalin will be unnecessary. This does not mean I think all authority over reactionaries will be unnecessary, quite the contrary, it is the most necessary thing to ensure a path towards socialism and eventually communism. But the measure of that authority, and the people it will have to effect, will be an extremely different scenario in any advanced capitalist country when compared to Russia. Our actions should reflect this plain and simple fact.

[Commie Rat]

Yes, the idiotic actions of one person must mean that everyone who is like him is like that. Why choose Communism? Why not his curly hair? beard? glasses? gender?

You make no valid point. Its just generalisation.


Kind of like the idiotic actions of a few cops with tazers make us an oppressive society?

Or like how one couple sold their child's name on E-bay makes capitalism disgusting?

You're quite handy to my arguments.

A. Frank

what one Christian does is his/her responsibility what one Jew does is thrown back on all Jews

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:06 AM
i don't have a problem admitting that after the fall of capitalism there will be certain things forced, particularly on the former-ruling caste. Forced labor does have its benefits, prison systems use it still.

We could make all religious persons, capitalists, bourgeois, reactionaries, nationalists, etc. perform forced labor until they are dead.
Wow.

:o

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Mar 29 2005, 01:52 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Mar 29 2005, 01:52 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 01:06 AM
i don't have a problem admitting that after the fall of capitalism there will be certain things forced, particularly on the former-ruling caste. Forced labor does have its benefits, prison systems use it still.

We could make all religious persons, capitalists, bourgeois, reactionaries, nationalists, etc. perform forced labor until they are dead.
Wow.

:o [/b]
For the record, I for one do not agree with rice349 on the policy of slave labour until death.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Enigma+Mar 29 2005, 01:05 PM--> (Enigma @ Mar 29 2005, 01:05 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:52 PM

[email protected] 29 2005, 01:06 AM
i don't have a problem admitting that after the fall of capitalism there will be certain things forced, particularly on the former-ruling caste. Forced labor does have its benefits, prison systems use it still.

We could make all religious persons, capitalists, bourgeois, reactionaries, nationalists, etc. perform forced labor until they are dead.
Wow.

:o
For the record, I for one do not agree with rice349 on the policy of slave labour until death. [/b]
I hope you realize why, when you have lunatics like Rice as part of your movement, many of us have a hard time taking it seriously.

[rice349]

I hope you realize why, when you have lunatics like Rice as part of your movement, many of us have a hard time taking it seriously.

While I personally take no offense to what either of you say, I know how my views may hurt our movement therefore i keep them generally quiet and speak in much milder terms than this. Again this is just the internet and nothing really matters and i'm completely anonymous. But i know when to be bold and when to be quiet and i have no problem staying on the sidelins until any mass-movement begins then i will just have to calculate my way to the forefront and shift the entire movement to my likings. My theory is lay and wait until you can take things down from the bottom up.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:59 PM

I hope you realize why, when you have lunatics like Rice as part of your movement, many of us have a hard time taking it seriously.

While I personally take no offense to what either of you say, I know how my views may hurt our movement therefore i keep them generally quiet and speak in much milder terms than this. Again this is just the internet and nothing really matters and i'm completely anonymous. But i know when to be bold and when to be quiet and i have no problem staying on the sidelins until any mass-movement begins then i will just have to calculate my way to the forefront and shift the entire movement to my likings. My theory is lay and wait until you can take things down from the bottom up.
NovelGentry, this is precisely what I am talking about when I say socialist communist revolutions led by the likes of people on this board would invariably lead to authoritarianism.

Thank you Rice, I could not have made this shit up if I had tried. People are going to think you're really a capitalist troll in disguise.

But then, maybe you are....


:ph34r: :o

[Andy Bowden]

Most Stalinists - in Scotland at least - have very little if any input into the socialist movement . I wouldn't recommend internet forums as a reliable source for information on socialism, or socialists. Common to most internet forums, you get nutcases - on all political spectrums. :rolleyes:

[rice349]

Thank you Rice, I could not have made this shit up if I had tried. People are going to think you're really a capitalist troll in disguise.

But then, maybe you are....

While you are free to think what you like, i am by no means a capitalist troll in disguise, i just happen to be a communist that believs in totalitarianism as a means to communism (if you want to discuss this we'll debate it another time or just check out some of my previous posts on the site or at the ECG forums). My brand of communism is different than that of Novegentry and others, and will be the first to admit i would go beyond simple authoritarianism to full-out totalitarianism (yes, there is a difference i'm a political scientist). Totalitarianism means affecting the thoguhts of the public--which i believe will be necessary in shifting the workers from capitalism to socialism, from socialism to communism. I have been open about my views since day one.

I do not love the idea of a totalitarian state, i agree there can be no freedom until there is an absence of the state; however, i also believe that there has to be an element of control particularly to prevent the shock of such radical transitions (which is my main concern/disagreement with anarchism).

I honestly believe the state can be all-powerful and still run society according to the workers. And once the workers have become more educated and more in agreement to communism, they will participate in the government more, and more and more democratic elements will be added until eventually, everyone is participating and the state simply ceasts to exist and you have communal property of the means of production and true communsim can take place. This is an over-simplification but you get the idea.

[Invader Zim]

Stalinism, in my opinion, is hardly better than fascism, and certainly clear parallels can be drawn between the two. However, I know from experience that some of the Stalinist leaning members of this board, highly knowledgeable and progressive individuals. So I now tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. However Rice, your comments, certainly test my resolve.

[rice349]

However Rice, your comments, certainly test my resolve.

How so?

[t_wolves_fan]

Bottom line Rice, you're using the coercive power of the state to mold mankind into your own vision.

You're not just a totalitarian, you think you're God, or should be allowed to play the role of God.

There's no difference between some right-wing biblethumper installing a theocracy and you. NONE at all. You're both so driven by the desire to control that you're not open to allowing people to decide their own fate - you think you should get to use the state to force them to adopt your principles "for their own good".

You're basically admitting that people would not adopt your principles by choice as well. It must suck to be pushing a philosophy you know you cannot sell honestly.

Maybe you should find a girlfriend or a pet or something.

[rice349]

Maybe you should find a girlfriend or a pet or something

I have a fiance and cat.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:40 PM

However Rice, your comments, certainly test my resolve.

How so?
I am sorry but suggesting that people be made slaves and forced to work until the die is incompatable with socialism, on every level.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:04 PM
If you don't like capitalism, die.
Not a far cry from the truth.


Capitalism and reality in this case are interchangable.


Truly voluntary.
In capitalism, we have no choice other than to exchange our labor for whatever the bosses think is fair. And it's never the accurate worth of the work.

And how is the accurate worth determined ?


We are essentially forced into giving our labor away at no benefit to us. This is something that nobody chooses to do.

Tha average person spends three years on the John. Do we do that out of choice ? Cry me a river.

[rice349]

I am sorry but suggesting that people be made slaves and forced to work until the die is incompatable with socialism, on every level.

Ooo i wasn't being literal in meaning we'd make slaves out of them; however, in a worker's state if they refuse to work they will have to be forced. This is based on the notion that each must work to their ability, then each will receive what one needs. Hopefully, force won't be necessary however if it comes down to it i have no problem using force to deal with opposition.

[Professor Moneybags]

How? How can I go and "make my own living." What property do I own to grow food and build shelter on? Where exactly is this wonderful place?

You get a job and buy it.


I'm not talking about voluntary associations. I'm trying to make it a point that the contractual agreements of capitalism are NOT voluntary. It is the ONLY option for the working class. We are born into this world with nothing,

In your case, everyone is given a blank cheque at birth.

You seem to think that everyone is entitled to have his life handed to them on a silver platter on the sole virtue that they exist- and at the expense of others, if necessary. That arrangement isn't voluntary either, but the difference is that yours requires the initiation of force to work.


So, of course, we can choose WHICH boss we want, but we cannot choose to be free from the boss. Our freedom is lacking immensely.

Yes you can. How many times must this idea that we live in a caste system be refuted ?


You are willing to admit society exists (it's rather difficult to deny) -- and it is also difficult to deny our role in that society and society's role towards us. Yet you seek to maintain the essence of man as an individual being, DESPITE, the glaring contradictions it has towards our social existence..

Society is a collection of individuals and what's wrong for an individual to do is wrong for society to do also. Claiming otherwise is using a double standard. Raising "society" to the level of an omnipotent being that can do no wrong is simply replacing one "god" with another.

[Professor Moneybags]

Ooo i wasn't being literal in meaning we'd make slaves out of them; however, in a worker's state if they refuse to work they will have to be forced.

That is slavery.

[Guest1]

Dependshow you do it, and I wouldn't describe it as force.

Want everything for free? Give everything you do for free. Don't want to? Then you get nothing from anyone else. No one will bother you beyond that, so long as you keep to yourself. If you try to make others work for you, that isn't gonna go well.

[comrade_mufasa]

We could make all religious persons, capitalists, bourgeois, reactionaries, nationalists, etc. perform forced labor until they are dead.
So rice was not saying that he wants everyone to be put into forced labor. Just enemys, which is understandable, but I would still not support such a move.

I have said it before, there will be no need to force people to work in a communist society becouse the revolution will only happen if the proletariat are willing to work for a communist society. This I belive is the only way it will work. And if the proletariat are willing for a communist society then they will vastly out number the reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. I say again if a reactionary was to stand on a soap-box a make a speech on the evils that are to come becouse of communism the people would look to the reactionary and say "look we have homes we cant be kick out of, we have food no matter what, health care is free for all, education is free for all, and we have true freedom from any oppressors of any sort". So the counter-revolutionaries will be silenced becouse thier words will fall on deaf ears.



Ooo i wasn't being literal in meaning we'd make slaves out of them; however, in a worker's state if they refuse to work they will have to be forced.
Rice, if the people were forced to work then why would they not just procede to have a second revolution in which they would remove the so called leaders of the revolution and charge them with treason against the people. This is why the people must remove the powers of the state after the revolution, so as to not allow anything of a Stalinist sort to happen.


Hopefully, force won't be necessary however if it comes down to it i have no problem using force to deal with opposition
But just becouse someone does not support the revolution it does not mean that they are enemies or opposition.

[Ele'ill]

I have a fiance and cat

Cats are vile creatures.



Hopefully, force won't be necessary however if it comes down to it i have no problem using force to deal with opposition.

So you're going to battle oppression with oppression. I thought it was the essence of oppression that was mal, not necessarily the people oppressing.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:12 PM
So you're going to battle oppression with oppression. I thought it was the essence of oppression that was mal, not necessarily the people oppressing.
Yes, we will battle oppression with oppression.
It will be the oppression of a small elite in the name of the liberty of millions.
Essentially, isn't the abolition of slavery a suppression of the slave owners' "rights" to own slaves? This will be no different.

[rice349]

QUOTE
I have a fiance and cat



Cats are vile creatures.
So are fiances sometimes :lol:


So you're going to battle oppression with oppression. I thought it was the essence of oppression that was mal, not necessarily the people oppressing.

Yes we will. And no, oppression isn't bad when its in the hands of the workers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And how is the accurate worth determined ?

The accurate worth usually can't be determined. My point was that in capitalism, a worker is alwasy paid less than the value of his/her labor. Otherwise, nobody would hire anyone.


Tha average person spends three years on the John. Do we do that out of choice ? Cry me a river.

Shitting is actually very beneficial. Try not shitting for a few weeks, and see how you feel.
Your analogy doesn't work. Try again.

[Ele'ill]

Yes we will. And no, oppression isn't bad when its in the hands of the workers

Workers are not perfect people. And by not perfect i'm not saying they are near perfect with a little flaw here and there. They are humans just as their oppressors are. They have the same opportunity if not a better opportunity to oppress post revolution. And yes Fiances can be evil.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Workers as a collective are perfect people. They can do no wrong in the pursuit of their own interests. Those being the interests of the majority. The people as a whole would only oppress those who threaten their collective power. And rightfully so.

[Ele'ill]

Workers as a collective are perfect people. They can do no wrong in the pursuit of their own interests. Those being the interests of the majority. The people as a whole would only oppress those who threaten their collective power. And rightfully so.

On a global scale yes there are many workers. This does not mean they all hold leftist ideas or would consent to a revolution. Saying any group of people are perfect people is simple not true. The US government is an example. They are a group of people that work with global trade, military ect.. They work with other governments which are also a grouping of people, many of which are against the US government's policies. This is just an example of one group of people working with another, which would be the same as european workers working with american workers. This example is shady I admit however I think it displays a current interaction between powerful groups of people. Many of the laborers that I know personally are wealthy. Wealthy for their countries gross income rate or wealthy in general on a global comparison scale. It isn't right to group workers as one giant grouping as they all have their own needs and wants.

[Xvall]

Which means of production did you construct ? How about your work colleagues, which did they construct ? This should be easy enough to answer.

What do my personal accomplishments have anything to do with economics as a whole?


No, they were being forced.

In what ways?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Saying any group of people are perfect people is simple not true.

If you advocate liberty and freedom, then you have to condone the actions of the people. Whatever we as a collective choose to do is in our interest, and therefore in the interest of anyone who condones liberty.

The US government works in its own interests. These are not in agreement with those of the people, therefore the US government must be abolished.

[NovelGentry]

NovelGentry, this is precisely what I am talking about when I say socialist communist revolutions led by the likes of people on this board would invariably lead to authoritarianism.

I'm not sure why you presume rice's ideology will ever be the most common. I respect rice for what I truly consider his desire to help the proletariat -- but his ideas apply to a system that is not actually ready to move to socialism. They are founded in the USSR, China, and the likes of every other revolution which has attempted to force socialism out of broken or non-existent capitalism.

If you ask me it's not in line with Marxism in the least. And me and rice debate regularly in other parts of the forum as to our reasons why we believe what we do. I doubt I'll ever convince him, and I know he'll never convince me.

So what is your point? That you attribute the flaws of single men to the flaws of an ideology not defined by those men? Your problem is with Marxism-Leninism, not with socialism and not with communism.

[NovelGentry]

You get a job and buy it.

So to be free from capitalism, I must first embrace capitalism.

Slave Owner: Come with me slave!
Slave: What do you want me for?
Slave Owner: I want you to work for me so that I may amass great wealth and sustain my life through the sale of the products you make for me.
Slave: Well won't I die if I work for you and not myself?
Slave Owner: No, I will give you the things you need so that you may continue living, so that you may continue to work for me. Things like food, water, and shelter!
Slave: But I can do all these things for myself on this here land.
Slave Owner: *pointing gun at slave* Come with me or you will die.

Strange... if I don't accept the capitalists proposal/contract to work for him... I die.... if the slave doesn't accept the slave owner's proposal... he dies.

As I've said before, we use the term wage slave for a reason.


You seem to think that everyone is entitled to have his life handed to them on a silver platter on the sole virtue that they exist- and at the expense of others, if necessary. That arrangement isn't voluntary either, but the difference is that yours requires the initiation of force to work.

You seem to have something confused here:

Socialism: If you do not work, you will die. Not because we shoot you, but because you will have no need to afford the things you need from society. HOWEVER, what you are able to afford from society is equalized with what you put into society, thus, no one is exploiting labor power for profit.

Communism: If society does not work, society will die. Not because we shoot each other, but because if no one is contributing to the needs of society (yourself included) no one can expect that the needs of society will be met.

Man is a social creature. He uses the labor of others to help sustain his life more easily, and others use the labor of him to help sustain their lives. Why are you so afraid of this concept?


Yes you can. How many times must this idea that we live in a caste system be refuted ?

Your alternative is death, that is not freedom.


Society is a collection of individuals and what's wrong for an individual to do is wrong for society to do also. Claiming otherwise is using a double standard. Raising "society" to the level of an omnipotent being that can do no wrong is simply replacing one "god" with another.

Here I was thinking we were talking about economics. As a social creature who is dependent on the labor of others, man is required to communicate and exist along side one another. As such, when personal interests on how to coexist peacefully actually conflict with one another - our solution is to resolve them so that we can maintain society -- the best means by which to do this is rule by majority. It doesn't make it RIGHT, but it makes it most compatible with society and thus continues the existence of society.

[rice349]

I respect rice for what I truly consider his desire to help the proletariat

Thank you comrade i appreciate it!

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:39 AM

Saying any group of people are perfect people is simple not true.

If you advocate liberty and freedom, then you have to condone the actions of the people. Whatever we as a collective choose to do is in our interest, and therefore in the interest of anyone who condones liberty.

The US government works in its own interests. These are not in agreement with those of the people, therefore the US government must be abolished.
Never mind those election results, right?

Who annointed you the spokesman of the "people'?

Let me guess, it's the guy you see in the mirror every morning.

The teenage narcissism is powerful in this one...

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 01:31 AM

So to be free from capitalism, I must first embrace capitalism.

Same requirement exists in your system, or all systems.

You say yourself that in socialism, if you don't work, you die.

So what's the difference, chief?



Slave Owner: Come with me slave!
Slave: What do you want me for?
Slave Owner: I want you to work for me so that I may amass great wealth and sustain my life through the sale of the products you make for me.
Slave: Well won't I die if I work for you and not myself?
Slave Owner: No, I will give you the things you need so that you may continue living, so that you may continue to work for me. Things like food, water, and shelter!
Slave: But I can do all these things for myself on this here land.
Slave Owner: *pointing gun at slave* Come with me or you will die.

In what system does this happen? Sudan?


Strange... if I don't accept the capitalists proposal/contract to work for him... I die.... if the slave doesn't accept the slave owner's proposal... he dies.

I didn't see you describe anything resembling a capitalist proposal.

Try again.


As I've said before, we use the term wage slave for a reason.

:lol:

It's funny that you use it to describe a phenomenon that doesn't exist in the system you bash.

[Professor Moneybags]

So to be free from capitalism, I must first embrace capitalism.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Reality sucks, doesn't it ?


Slave Owner: Come with me slave!
Slave: What do you want me for?
Slave Owner: I want you to work for me so that I may amass great wealth and sustain my life through the sale of the products you make for me.
Slave: Well won't I die if I work for you and not myself?
Slave Owner: No, I will give you the things you need so that you may continue living, so that you may continue to work for me. Things like food, water, and shelter!
Slave: But I can do all these things for myself on this here land.
Slave Owner: *pointing gun at slave* Come with me or you will die.

This implies that the "slave" is being forced to work at gunpoint.


Strange... if I don't accept the capitalists proposal/contract to work for him... I die.... if the slave doesn't accept the slave owner's proposal... he dies.

Once again your inability to tell the metaphysical from the man-made rears its ugly head. This is not a personal attack against you, I am pointing out an error in your reasoning.


You seem to have something confused here:

Socialism: If you do not work, you will die. Not because we shoot you,

Shooting me is more than likely if I work and refuse to hand over the goodies to those without.


but because you will have no need to afford the things you need from society. HOWEVER, what you are able to afford from society is equalized with what you put into society, thus, no one is exploiting labor power for profit.

Except those who are not putting anything into society, whos lack of contributions are hidden by the collectivist nature of the system itself.


Communism: If society does not work, society will die. Not because we shoot each other, but because if no one is contributing to the needs of society (yourself included) no one can expect that the needs of society will be met.

This is the same as above, with the same problems. Because communism does not ban the initiation of force, it is more than likely that individuals who do not wish to participate in this collective will be forced to do so at gunpoint- societies "defence mechanism" to ensure it's survival. Slavery, in other words.


Man is a social creature. He uses the labor of others to help sustain his life more easily, and others use the labor of him to help sustain their lives. Why are you so afraid of this concept?

The rationalisation that individuals live at societie's expense, so therefore society may exploit any individual as it sees fit can take on rather ominous dimentions, including the use of agressive behaviour.


Your alternative is death, that is not freedom.

So what's my alternative and how is yours any different ?


Here I was thinking we were talking about economics. As a social creature who is dependent on the labor of others, man is required to communicate and exist along side one another.

Required in what way and by whom ?


As such, when personal interests on how to coexist peacefully actually conflict with one another - our solution is to resolve them so that we can maintain society -- the best means by which to do this is rule by majority. It doesn't make it RIGHT,

I have a standard that respects everyone's rights, not just those of a majority. That must make mine even better.

[rice349]

Shooting me is more than likely if I work and refuse to hand over the goodies to those without

Your selfishness will result in your demise i suppose. Force will never be erased in any system. Philosophically communism is not pacifism, it is that of direct action both in pre and post revolutionary times. We never claimed there would be no threat of force nor would it be logical to assume there wouldn't be any.


Except those who are not putting anything into society, whos lack of contributions are hidden by the collectivist nature of the system itself.

Just because the profit-motive of work is taken away, doesn't mean human beings will be lazy and not work. You have a very skeptical view of human nature in assuming that laziness will be a key problem. No, i think the reason we see so many people not working now and not "contributing" to society is the fact they are frusterated and see little to no point in giving to a society that doesn't give a damn about them. I believe human beings are altruistic in nature and are willing to share the burden amongst each other as a society of brotherhood. However, when they become corrupted by capitalism and reactionary philosophy, as stated in my above post, there will be force on those who are not willing to contribute, at least in the period of socialism, when their work results in either positive or negative consequences for society.


This is the same as above, with the same problems. Because communism does not ban the initiation of force, it is more than likely that individuals who do not wish to participate in this collective will be forced to do so at gunpoint- societies "defence mechanism" to ensure it's survival. Slavery, in other words

Your basis for this simply shows that you are equating any type of forced labor with slavery. Slavery is actually "owning" the labor as if it were a piece of property or an object. Your comparison between what little "forced or coerced" labor their would be in a society doesn't hold up to the true horrific nature to which slavery is. Secondly, in the communist society there wouldn't be force because by this time society will have accepted the notion of working together for the needs of all. This type of problem (and perhaps with force) will be dealt with during socialism. It can be expected that there will be a certain amount of individuals who will reject collectivism and such, and they will have to be dealt with in some way or another. Force may very well indeed be the most efficient and necessary means of dealing with this complicated situation. Accept it and move on!


So what's my alternative and how is yours any different ?

Face it Professor Moneybags, your alternative is going to be death or at the very least forced labor in a gulag.

[NovelGentry]

Same requirement exists in your system, or all systems.

You say yourself that in socialism, if you don't work, you die.

So what's the difference, chief?


Indeed, socialism remains a class society with class antagonisms and distinctions between the old proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Communism, however, does not.


In what system does this happen? Sudan?

No, the point is very simply that the slave is threatened with death if he does not work for the master, much like the proletariat is threatened with death if they do not work for the bourgeoisie. Only difference now is, the proletariat doesn't have any land, so the bourgeoisie doesn't really need the gun. But you can be sure there'd be a gun and some handcuffs involved the minute the proletariat tried to use that land to sustain themselves.


I didn't see you describe anything resembling a capitalist proposal.

Try again.


Apparently you're not looking hard enough.


It's funny that you use it to describe a phenomenon that doesn't exist in the system you bash.

It's a quite similar phenomenon, but I will agree, not exact. As I said, the difference is that all land has now been taken and controlled by the bourgeoisie, so they don't really need the gun anymore -- unless of course you happen to pretend that as a human being you deserve at least a proper portion of the earth to sustain your own life... then upon infringing on their property, the gun becomes very very present.

[NovelGentry]

Once again your inability to tell the metaphysical from the man-made rears its ugly head. This is not a personal attack against you, I am pointing out an error in your reasoning.

And I've pointed out a billion times the opposite of metaphysical is not man-made. Maybe you should take a lesson from yourself and point out this false-dichotomy. Yes, it IS a metaphysical force, on condition that you respect the ownership of land, if you do not respect that, it become a very physical force. Both forces are man made.

[Ele'ill]

If you advocate liberty and freedom, then you have to condone the actions of the people. Whatever we as a collective choose to do is in our interest, and therefore in the interest of anyone who condones liberty.

So what you and your group of individuals that are in power decide is right for everyone as a whole, and if you think differently than this you don't condone liberty.
:rolleyes:



The US government works in its own interests. These are not in agreement with those of the people, therefore the US government must be abolished.

The US government works in it's own interests just as you and your 'masses' would. I say this because the 'masses' are not this vague poster of workers with their fists in the air with machine gears in the background. The masses are people, many whom would never consent to a revolution and work hard at what they do (they are workers, they are the proletariats). What the US government 'does' isn't one event. The US government does many things that many people reguardless of political orientation agree with, and like wise disagree with. The majority of the proletariat population is not radical left. They may agree with you over foreign labor policies reguarding the wto/imf/wb and then turn around and disagree with you in reguards to the war in iraq. Too many people on the left assume what the masses want.

[NovelGentry]

So what you and your group of individuals that are in power decide is right for everyone as a whole, and if you think differently than this you don't condone liberty.

The group of individuals in power should be the whole collective, and what is established as a rule or policy there should only affect that collective.

The organization of communist society is not similar to the hierarchical nature of the US system of government. If indeed there is ever a "federally" (which in terms of communism would actually be globally) decided issue, it would be an issue which receives the vote of every person. However, this simply does not happen... nor does it need to. There is no justification to have someone half way around a world, or even half way around a nation vote on an issue which is to affect you as well. Decentralized and local government is the means by which communism assures equality and rights.

Socialism works on very much the same principle, but reserves these rights for the proletariat.


The US government works in it's own interests just as you and your 'masses' would.

The US government works in the interest of the bourgeoisie, if it works in it's own interest it is only by chance that it is completely made up of the bourgeoisie.


I say this because the 'masses' are not this vague poster of workers with their fists in the air with machine gears in the background. The masses are people, many whom would never consent to a revolution and work hard at what they do (they are workers, they are the proletariats).

Precisely why anything BUT massive workers revolution is out of the question -- at least for me. We must work with the interest of the class, and we do so by letting the class decide it's own interests. To push the Leninist vanguard paradigm is a fallacy to socialism itself.

What of those workers who do not revolt even amongst the masses? What of them? They are either sided with the bourgeoisie or too blind to understand their own class interest. Mind you, I am not determining the class interest. The rule is as simple as follows, majority rules -- We will NEED a majority to win any revolution and to make it work, thus that revolutionary majority can easily be assumed to represent the majority class interest.


What the US government 'does' isn't one event. The US government does many things that many people reguardless of political orientation agree with, and like wise disagree with. The majority of the proletariat population is not radical left.

Obviously they are not radical left, if they were, we wouldn't exactly be chatting on this message board right now... we'd probably be out in the streets. But where did anyone ever say the majority of the proletariat population is radical left?


They may agree with you over foreign labor policies reguarding the wto/imf/wb and then turn around and disagree with you in reguards to the war in iraq. Too many people on the left assume what the masses want.

Correction, too many people on the left assume what the masses WILL want -- if we assume wrong, then we will be wrong. The issue at hand is not the radical left, nor is it Marxism, the issue at hand is the misunderstanding of the nature of what we speak.

Do I want revolution? yes
Do I want revolution now? yes
Do I think we can have our revolution now? no

I suppose what it comes down to is what you consider revolution. I personally don't think it can be revolution until action has been taken, and by action I do mean action which actually opposes the system on a very fundamental "working" level -- not just protestors with signs. I do, however, believe there can be something of an educational revolution, indeed it must preceed our action, and it must focus on building up the consciousness of the proletariat itself.

I don't think any of us are seeking a means by which to preach the way we should all live our lives. We are seeking a means by which to tell the people that it is time to take control of their lives into their own hands. In doing so, I, personally, can only hope that this will mean the death of capitalism.

[colombiano]

The US government works in it's own interests just as you and your 'masses' would.
I have to agree with Novel .The U$ is a Plutocracy with the government working in the best economic interest of the corporate structures that line their pockets.

[Ele'ill]

What of those workers who do not revolt even amongst the masses? What of them? They are either sided with the bourgeoisie or too blind to understand their own class interest. Mind you, I am not determining the class interest. The rule is as simple as follows, majority rules -- We will NEED a majority to win any revolution and to make it work, thus that revolutionary majority can easily be assumed to represent the majority class interest.

I'm not really questioning the aspect of a perfectly executed revolution i'm questioning the realistic possibility that a revolution would not go as planned. Yeah if the majority decided and revolted and was successful ok it worked. I don't think it will. The world is not made up of polarized people on right or left. There is a neutral buffer before either side and there is a middle. I'd like to think the middle is the majority which would mean radical ideologies would hit a no fly zone. Not out of intolerance but out of practicality; There would be no revolution.



The US government works in the interest of the bourgeoisie, if it works in it's own interest it is only by chance that it is completely made up of the bourgeoisie.

Once again, if a revolution were to go as planned, the majority would rise up. If this isn't the case which is possible, only a small number would rise up or say 50% of the population. This would mean that if successful, they would now be dominant over the other equal or smaller percentage.


Obviously they are not radical left, if they were, we wouldn't exactly be chatting on this message board right now... we'd probably be out in the streets. But where did anyone ever say the majority of the proletariat population is radical left?

It was implied in posts reguarding this topic. It frequently is implied on this board that the masses will rise. The masses are and always will be of mixed ideological background which especially in these current times means radical ideas will be questioned.


I suppose what it comes down to is what you consider revolution. I personally don't think it can be revolution until action has been taken, and by action I do mean action which actually opposes the system on a very fundamental "working" level -- not just protestors with signs. I do, however, believe there can be something of an educational revolution, indeed it must preceed our action, and it must focus on building up the consciousness of the proletariat itself.

Education is the key action needed. The masses can't follow if they don't understand what is actually taking place.


I don't think any of us are seeking a means by which to preach the way we should all live our lives. We are seeking a means by which to tell the people that it is time to take control of their lives into their own hands. In doing so, I, personally, can only hope that this will mean the death of capitalism.

This should be done by educating them on why things need to change, not what they should be changed to. If the population is being told why change is needed, they know the core issues. If they are told what it should be changed to, they have a preconcieved image of something thus they lose the ability to think for themselves; or rather decide to choose not to.

[NovelGentry]

I'm not really questioning the aspect of a perfectly executed revolution i'm questioning the realistic possibility that a revolution would not go as planned. Yeah if the majority decided and revolted and was successful ok it worked. I don't think it will. The world is not made up of polarized people on right or left. There is a neutral buffer before either side and there is a middle. I'd like to think the middle is the majority which would mean radical ideologies would hit a no fly zone. Not out of intolerance but out of practicality; There would be no revolution.

The problem is that you argue this in the realm of subjective reasoning -- people don't "agree" with it. And I realize that people don't agree with it now, my argument has never been that that do, or even that they will within the next 10 years, or within the next 20 years. My argument is that one day they WILL agree that it needs to be overthrown, and it will not come about by subjective or moral arguments posed by the left, but objective and material reality posed by material conditions themselves.


Once again, if a revolution were to go as planned, the majority would rise up. If this isn't the case which is possible, only a small number would rise up or say 50% of the population. This would mean that if successful, they would now be dominant over the other equal or smaller percentage.

Agreed, but would it be dominant over an equal percentage of proletarians? Or an equal percentage of proletarians who disagree and the rest of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie? Again, I DO NOT CARE about what the petty bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie think, their opinion means nothing to me, and I do not think they have any right to be part of the democratic decisions of our class.

So say you have 10% bourgeoisie, and 15% petty bourgeoisie (fairly realistic numbers I think -- although these are probably shrinking daily). This leaves you 75% total population that can be considered proletariat -- when we organize as a class, a majority would only be 50% of that, is 37.5% of the population.

This percentage, or the equivalent percentage as numbers change is what I believe we need to be objectively justified in our cause. I believe this number will be met and exceeded with time as our relations and the material conditions change.

Furthermore, in order for such a revolution to BE successful, I think we would need far more than this percentage of the population. We'd probably need something closer to 65%.

It is illogical to think we could succeed and be oppressive WITHOUT the consent of a majority.

So how did it work in Russia... well without going into detail. Russia 1917 is not the United States 20XX.


It was implied in posts reguarding this topic. It frequently is implied on this board that the masses will rise. The masses are and always will be of mixed ideological background which especially in these current times means radical ideas will be questioned.

Whether or not the masses rise up is completely dependent on whether or not the bourgeoisie allows themselves to give up control. I do not believe they will, thus I believe the masses will rise up and TAKE control. -- It has nothing to do with their ideology, and especially nothing to do with their ideology as it stands today.


Education is the key action needed. The masses can't follow if they don't understand what is actually taking place.

Agreed, but regardless of whether or not we communists even exist, the nature of the bourgeoisies control will become ever more present. Thereby raising class consciousness. The state in which the proletariat finds itself in will be ever more oppressed and downtrodden... thereby raising material consciousness.

Again, I hope to accelerate this by making it MORE clear before it is undoubtedly clear.


This should be done by educating them on why things need to change, not what they should be changed to.

Agreed it should, and I"d love for that alone to be possible, but the problem is of course most people think "Well that's the way it is." "Yeah, but we have to deal with it." -- Thus, you have to present an alternative, no matter how crazy or unreal that alternative may seem to them, at some point it will become their primary option. The sooner they realize a) why things need to change b) how they can change to fix it... then the sooner they will be able to see it as their primary option as things begin to get worse.


If the population is being told why change is needed, they know the core issues. If they are told what it should be changed to, they have a preconcieved image of something thus they lose the ability to think for themselves; or rather decide to choose not to.

They should be made aware of both. -- And I think it's fair to say that I have attempted to tell you an equal amount of both sides.

[Ele'ill]

Agreed, but would it be dominant over an equal percentage of proletarians? Or an equal percentage of proletarians who disagree and the rest of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie? Again, I DO NOT CARE about what the petty bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie think, their opinion means nothing to me, and I do not think they have any right to be part of the democratic decisions of our class.


It wouldn't be the bourgeoisie. Unless they are that 50% or 40% ect. In that case they would be the 'majority' or close enough to it percentage wise. I would care what they think.


So say you have 10% bourgeoisie, and 15% petty bourgeoisie (fairly realistic numbers I think -- although these are probably shrinking daily). This leaves you 75% total population that can be considered proletariat -- when we organize as a class, a majority would only be 50% of that, is 37.5% of the population.

Not all of the proletariat percentage would neccisarly be in favor of the revolution, or those ideologies surrounding it. Although I understand for the sake of displaying theoretical statistics we have to play with solid numbers.


It is illogical to think we could succeed and be oppressive WITHOUT the consent of a majority

The minority bourgeoisie are in power now. From a class perspective atleast.



I do not believe they will, thus I believe the masses will rise up and TAKE control. -- It has nothing to do with their ideology, and especially nothing to do with their ideology as it stands today.

If it has nothing to do with ideology then why are so many 'leftists' on this board throwing the slogans and titles around? Will the masses enjoy this imput from this end of the radical spectrum? It has everything to do with ideology as the masses need to know what they are fighting for and what their goal is. If someone says post revolution socialism 10% of the proletariat population might not support the revolution. Words and titles are very powerful although I understand your perspective that ideology wont' matter because there will be a common goal I just don't agree that the masses will fight, in a sense, blindly.


Thus, you have to present an alternative, no matter how crazy or unreal that alternative may seem to them, at some point it will become their primary option. The sooner they realize a) why things need to change b) how they can change to fix it... then the sooner they will be able to see it as their primary option as things begin to get worse.

I agree and have no problem presenting the core issues followed by specific systems for change I have a problem in how they're presented and how concrete these beliefs are. It amuses me that some that denounce christianity will stand by say communism with 100% loyalty.


They should be made aware of both. -- And I think it's fair to say that I have attempted to tell you an equal amount of both sides.

I never accused you of otherwise. I have only questioned new snippets added into your replies. We seem to agree on the general issue of revolution discussed in this thread as well as the other 5 that we're hopping around on :P

[Wiesty]

i 100% agree with the guy. He's not a crazy commie, hes a pissed commie, verbally attacking the idiots at ProtestWarrior.com

[NovelGentry]

A lot of the following is my moral stance -- I usually don't answer questions like this, because it leads to "who are you to decice." And the answer to that is... I'm nobody, but thankfully I don't have to make the decision on communism -- material reality has already done so.


It wouldn't be the bourgeoisie. Unless they are that 50% or 40% ect. In that case they would be the 'majority' or close enough to it percentage wise. I would care what they think.

I wouldn't, but thankfully they're not that percentage. You may call this undemocratic, and that's fine. I have no problem with being called a bad person, or a mean person, or a person who doesn't care about humanity.

I have no problem seeing the bourgeoisie killed. Just like I have no problem killing a man who would kill another. If you're looking for an anti-death penalty guy, you're in the wrong place. However, what I do have a problem with (death penalty wise) is watching a person go down when there is reasonable doubt, which is far to often the case in the American justice system. Not too many people understand what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means.

Overall my moral issues, however, do not matter. It is impossible for such a large percentage of the population to be bourgeoisie.


Not all of the proletariat percentage would neccisarly be in favor of the revolution, or those ideologies surrounding it. Although I understand for the sake of displaying theoretical statistics we have to play with solid numbers.

I understand this. But in the event that such was NOT the case... would it ever happen? if it did happen... would it ever succeed?

You may of course have people who are "indifferent" to their system... they don't care, so long as they can live, and they do under both. I have no problem deciding socialism for such people. I personally think it's quite disgusting when a person cannot take an interest in the progression and formation of the society they live in.


The minority bourgeoisie are in power now. From a class perspective atleast.

Of course because "that's the way it's always been" There was a time when their ideas were shared and people really supported the overthrowing of the minority aristocracy in power -- and they did so on the grounds that what the bourgeoisie did was progressive then. They will do so again for socialism.


If it has nothing to do with ideology then why are so many 'leftists' on this board throwing the slogans and titles around?

I don't know who they think they're going to convince with that. But I would assume they're doing it because that is what they believe works. I personally like to present the ideas behind Marxism first -- that communism is scientific and objective, or at least aims to be so as a progression of society.

I think the current means of explaining communism to people is dated and based completely on flawed logic -- I think it leads very much to the same type of situation you would have in the USSR or China. And I think if people are brainwashed into communism, the same will happen here -- we may make some progressive change, but in the end we will be struggling to keep the system afloat, and we will have to resort to the same protective class mechanism as the bourgeoisie which is extremely oppressive.

Does this mean I wouldn't support it? No. I'd be behind any such movement, because I want change -- would I start such a movement though? No.

I am favorable of anything that attacks and rips down the chains of capitalism. If given the option between capitalism and such a movement, I will choose that movement. If given the option between capitalism, that movement, and another movement which is far more proper... I will choose that other movement.


Will the masses enjoy this imput from this end of the radical spectrum? It has everything to do with ideology as the masses need to know what they are fighting for and what their goal is.

If the masses are brainwashed by people into thinking this is what they must do, it can only last so long as we are able to brainwash them, which will not be forever -- eventually material reality will come and bite us in the ass. And indeed, that brainwashing is completely based on personal ideology.

However, I do not believe this will be the case -- if for no other reason than that people hear the word "communism" and they run. I believe people will accept it as their own ideology, that is, that they will convince themselves, when and only when their personal point of view on material conditions, allows them to do so. The problem is of course, some people are in a position where their material perspective allows them to do so -- and they are unaware because there is someone on the other side brainwashing them in the other direction -- telling them to fear terrorists so Halliburton can make a buck. The only thing I can do is present the other side... people have to take it upon themselves to actually believe it.

Marx called for a self-emancipation of the working class... not emancipation by the revolutionary communist party et. al -- and I agree with Marx.


Words and titles are very powerful although I understand your perspective that ideology wont' matter because there will be a common goal I just don't agree that the masses will fight, in a sense, blindly.

Agreed, they will not fight blindly. This is exactly why we have to shine a light on things. This isn't to say we are forcing them to look in our direction, but we are making the alternative known and even if the lighting of the room catches their eye for a moment, maybe it will be enough that they willfully come and check it out.

If we just do nothing, they might not ever know the alternative exists. Hell, the bourgeoisie might even try to ensure they don't know it exists -- and they do.

[NovelGentry]

I agree and have no problem presenting the core issues followed by specific systems for change I have a problem in how they're presented and how concrete these beliefs are. It amuses me that some that denounce christianity will stand by say communism with 100% loyalty.

Why? Communism, assuming a foundation in Marxism is extremely clear. The idea of class struggle and the nature of capitalism itself can be seen in reality. God is an invisible man in the sky, usually backed up by a single collection of books called The Bible. These books have no relevance to the material world, only to an imaginary world defined completely by these books.


I never accused you of otherwise. I have only questioned new snippets added into your replies. We seem to agree on the general issue of revolution discussed in this thread as well as the other 5 that we're hopping around on

So maybe there's hope for you afterall. :D

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 02:32 AM
i 100% agree with the guy. He's not a crazy commie, hes a pissed commie, verbally attacking the idiots at ProtestWarrior.com
How many adults do you think will take people like this seriously and join his cause?

Or do you just plan to kill them all.

[Professor Moneybags]

Just because the profit-motive of work is taken away, doesn't mean human beings will be lazy and not work. You have a very skeptical view of human nature in assuming that laziness will be a key problem.

Do you think that everyone goes through their entire life without ever asking "what's the point ?"


No, i think the reason we see so many people not working now and not "contributing" to society is the fact they are frusterated and see little to no point in giving to a society that doesn't give a damn about them.

So they can't see any point contributing unless they benefit in someway ? Precisely my point.


Your basis for this simply shows that you are equating any type of forced labor with slavery.

What is forced labor, if not slavery ?


Secondly, in the communist society there wouldn't be force because by this time society will have accepted the notion of working together for the needs of all.

By murdering those who don't. Murdering someone involved the use of force last time I checked.


Face it Professor Moneybags, your alternative is going to be death or at the very least forced labor in a gulag.

*chuckle* There isn't enough room in my signature box for your idiocy.

[rice349]

So they can't see any point contributing unless they benefit in someway ? Precisely my point.

Well, they don't have much choice when living under a capitalist system.


What is forced labor, if not slavery ?

Forced labor would be used for criminals, who would in turn be allowed to return back to society after their sentences. They would be provided with essentials to keep them alive and they would not become property of anybody. Nor would they be sold or subject to bondage. They would remain human beings, not property.


chuckle* There isn't enough room in my signature box for your idiocy.

No, you're confusing idiocy with a lack of moral objections to what you call "murder" and violence in general, as well as a lack of respect for the "right to life" with those whom i disagree with.

[colombiano]

A note on "Slavery"
Currently approximately 400 million people live in conditions that are considered to be 1 of the 4 types of slavery. As I have disguised earlier one of these types is taken place on US Commonwealth soil and nothing has been done.

[rice349]

As I have disguised earlier one of these types is taken place on US Commonwealth soil and nothing has been done.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect anything do be done about this (at least in regards by the U.S.) anytime soon

[Commie Rat]

QUOTE
Secondly, in the communist society there wouldn't be force because by this time society will have accepted the notion of working together for the needs of all.



By murdering those who don't. Murdering someone involved the use of force last time I checked.

i am pretty sure the poison does not involve force

[JazzRemington]

Speaking of protestwarrior.com, weren't they supposed to come here or something and spread "the good word," as it were?

[NovelGentry]

Speaking of protestwarrior.com, weren't they supposed to come here or something and spread "the good word," as it were?

Where do you think t_wolves_fan, Publius, and all of them came from? :lol:

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 10:23 PM
A note on "Slavery"
Currently approximately 400 million people live in conditions that are considered to be 1 of the 4 types of slavery. As I have disguised earlier one of these types is taken place on US Commonwealth soil and nothing has been done.
1 of what 4 ?

[colombiano]

1 of what 4 ?
The four types of Slavery
1. Chattel Slavery
2. Child Bondage
3. Debt Bondage
4. Servile Form of Marriage

The US Territory I am speaking of is Saipan. So next time you see that Made in the USA label and your heart begins to swell with patriotic joy ................SURPRISE it most likely was made under slave labor conditions in Saipan. :o


Let us not forget the U$'s role in coercive Neo- Colonialism techniques as well .

[Ele'ill]

Where do you think t_wolves_fan, Publius, and all of them came from? laugh.gif

The deep end of the gene pool.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:19 AM

Where do you think t_wolves_fan, Publius, and all of them came from? laugh.gif

The deep end of the gene pool.
Possibly, however I believe it more likley to be play school.

[Ele'ill]

Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect anything do be done about this (at least in regards by the U.S.) anytime soon


You could always win rapport with all 400 million of them in however many countries there are, rise up and lead a workers rebellion against....ah yes. Whom? :rolleyes:

[Zingu]

http://www.overspun.com/video/F&F-Commies.wmv


Commies on Fox News.


EDIT- Make the Maoists on Fox News; just noticed the RCP t-shirt on the Communist chick.

[Ele'ill]

I&#39;d rather not watch anything from fox news reguardless of the content >.<

[comrade_mufasa]

That girl with the RCP shirt was cute :D