Communism?

[Senrux]

i just wanna know, y we can't all be friends? Capitalist and Communist together.

[RedAnarchist]

Our views are too different. I'm sure capitalists are nice people personally, but politically we are vehemently agaisnt them.

[New Tolerance]

That's like asking: y can't we all be friends? The good and the evil together.

It contradicts the whole point of having definations for these things.

(who's good and who's evil is what these debates are all about)

[KC]

Good and evil, neither are good or evil. They're a set of beliefs; they can't ever be evil. More like better and worse.

[OleMarxco]

Oh YEAH? So what about all the "crap" of OURS that "Capitalists are exploiting workers", ISN'T THAT CONSIDERED EVIL or what? And doesn't that make Capitalists evil, or do they just become "ignorant" of what they're doing? Please. More like withouth good there is no evil and vice versa.

[Eastside Revolt]

It depends what you mean by communist. If you are in the Chinese govenment then you mught consider yourself a communist, but you are still a capitalist. If you are a communist like say Castro, then you my find yourself with capitalist "friends", but that would really only be out of desparation.

Communism cannot exist with the pressures of capitalism still alive.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 06:50 PM
i just wanna know, y we can't all be friends? Capitalist and Communist together.
No, our interests are in total antagonism. While capitalism is the real enemy, the capitalists benefit from it, and will thus struggle against those who don't and strives to abolish the capitalist relations. Sure, some capitalists might accually be nice individuals, but in the class conflict we stand on opposite sides.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 09:15 PM
It depends what you mean by communist. If you are in the Chinese govenment then you mught consider yourself a communist, but you are still a capitalist. If you are a communist like say Castro, then you my find yourself with capitalist "friends", but that would really only be out of desparation.

Communism cannot exist with the pressures of capitalism still alive.
I don't understand that?

You mean if you split a theoritcal world in 1/2, once side communist and one side free market.

Communism can not exist?

Why?

[Forward Union]

Because that could just never happen.

But if it did, the capitalist portion would eventually require new revenues of profit, new resources to exploit, and would be forced to war with the communist half.

Your forgetting that in capitalism the bottom line is money, it wouldn't matter why this divide was set up. If it isn't profitable it'd be ignored.

Beyond the fact that the capitalists would invade out of necessity...the communists may attack on the basis of morality. There would still be so much injustice in the capitalist half, that many would feel it their duty to liberate the exploited.

These are just a few vague reasons, ultimately there can be no compromise, either you go or we go.

[OleMarxco]

This is also why USSR never could become truly Communistic and were "stuck" in the socialistic transistionary phase, with a corrupt leader as Stalin. Because of the pressures of Capitalism - they "sneaked" trough the boarders of Russia and imposed outside Capitalistic impulses, thus effectively making Russia a State-Capitalism at best, people totally alienated from the utopia of Communism proposed by the Vanguard party and got driven by the temptation of Capitalistism and the commodified culture, and so they became counter-Revolutionaries.

Before doing the move over to the system we preach, We need to erradicate -EVERY- trace of it before attempting to do so. Permanent revolution! :angry:
P.S. In that scenario, I would never attack the Capitalistic land unprovokenly, because I think we should defeat them on defence and THEN invade them, to take over their land since now it is withouth a huge protection.

[Professor Moneybags]

Beyond the fact that the capitalists would invade out of necessity...the communists may attack on the basis of morality. There would still be so much injustice in the capitalist half, that many would feel it their duty to liberate the exploited.

The capitalist half would use an identical argument. When one half of the world respects property rights while the other doesn't. Which half do you think is more likely to invade the other ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:26 PM
Before doing the move over to the system we preach, We need to erradicate -EVERY- trace of it before attempting to do so. Permanent revolution! :angry:
Totalitarian police state, in other words.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 14 2005, 08:28 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 14 2005, 08:28 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:26 PM
Before doing the move over to the system we preach, We need to erradicate -EVERY- trace of it before attempting to do so. Permanent revolution! :angry:
Totalitarian police state, in other words. [/b]
Negative, and learn to edit posts. -OUR- land will be untotalarian, but with some "police" and perhaps a "state", until we can drop Socialism and do the full move to Communism after Capitalism has ATLEAST left us alone - No matter how unlikely THAT is!

But meanwhile in -OUR- newly revoluted land people will be educated to give up Capitalism (As if it would be needed! Of course if people don't want to, which is unlikely as the revolution has convinced the mayority to revolute, they can just have their bloated Capitalism -- As for any minority, well, then we shall depend on the people to resist if they want to), the reactionary REMAINS of Capitalism will be pursued and confronted. This goes perhaps against the "defencial" thing I said, but that was only in that scenario. In reality we could not co-exist as they (The capitalists) would look for another market to exploit. We will keep them at bay with force if necessary, or at very least refuse their "offers", and at most do a counter-attack if they don't cease their attempts to corrupt.


"Professormoneybags"
The capitalist half would use an identical argument. When one half of the world respects property rights while the other doesn't. Which half do you think is more likely to invade the other?

The "Morality" argument is OF COURSE bullshit, we won't invade ANYONE. We will only try of to be educating THEIR citizens to revolute - and if they agree, they will. Any invasion is ILLEGETIMATE IMPERIALISM and I for once would NEVER call for my half to do so. It is not that we "disrespect" properity rights (a burgeouise contraption, this is not about "respect") we have just abolished it because it is no longer needed. Definately, the Capitalist Half will invade of course, because they can't have an neighbour so opposed to "their" lifestyle. I suppose you could say the same of us, but if I have a say...we would not mirror their imperialistic styles.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 14 2005, 08:27 PM
The capitalist half would use an identical argument. When one half of the world respects property rights while the other doesn't. Which half do you think is more likely to invade the other ?


The capitalist half would claim that the communist half would need new revenues of profit?

What kind of joke are you?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Anarcho [email protected] 14 2005, 08:38 PM
The capitalist half would claim that the communist half would need new revenues of profit?
Nice evasion. Try again.

[OleMarxco]

This argument made no sense. I'm removing it now :ph34r:

[Professor Moneybags]

Negative, and learn to edit posts. -OUR- land will be untotalarian, but with some "police" and perhaps a "state", until we can drop Socialism and do the full move to Communism after Capitalism has ATLEAST left us alone - No matter how unlikely THAT is!

If every aspect of capitalism must be erased, then how is this going to be achieved in practice ? Are you going to be watching everyone to make sure that no-one "behaves like a capitalist" ?


It is not that we "disrespect" properity rights (a burgeouise contraption, this is not about "respect") we have just abolished it because it is no longer needed.

And if you don't recognize the property rights of citizens in your own country, what makes you think that the property rights of people outside your country are going to be recognized ? I have a feeling they won't be.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by OleMarxco+May 14 2005, 08:33 PM--> (OleMarxco @ May 14 2005, 08:33 PM)
Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 14 2005, 08:28 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 14 2005, 08:28 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 08:26 PM
Before doing the move over to the system we preach, We need to erradicate -EVERY- trace of it before attempting to do so. Permanent revolution! :angry:
Totalitarian police state, in other words. [/b]
Negative, and learn to edit posts. -OUR- land will be untotalarian, but with some "police" and perhaps a "state", until we can drop Socialism and do the full move to Communism after Capitalism has ATLEAST left us alone - No matter how unlikely THAT is!

But meanwhile in -OUR- newly revoluted land people will be educated to give up Capitalism (As if it would be needed! Of course if people don't want to, which is unlikely as the revolution has convinced the mayority to revolute, they can just have their bloated Capitalism -- As for any minority, well, then we shall depend on the people to resist if they want to), the reactionary REMAINS of Capitalism will be pursued and confronted. This goes perhaps against the "defencial" thing I said, but that was only in that scenario. In reality we could not co-exist as they (The capitalists) would look for another market to exploit. We will keep them at bay with force if necessary, or at very least refuse their "offers", and at most do a counter-attack if they don't cease their attempts to corrupt.


"Professormoneybags"
The capitalist half would use an identical argument. When one half of the world respects property rights while the other doesn't. Which half do you think is more likely to invade the other?

The "Morality" argument is OF COURSE bullshit, we won't invade ANYONE. We will only try of to be educating THEIR citizens to revolute - and if they agree, they will. Any invasion is ILLEGETIMATE IMPERIALISM and I for once would NEVER call for my half to do so. It is not that we "disrespect" properity rights (a burgeouise contraption, this is not about "respect") we have just abolished it because it is no longer needed. Definately, the Capitalist Half will invade of course, because they can't have an neighbour so opposed to "their" lifestyle. I suppose you could say the same of us, but if I have a say...we would not mirror their imperialistic styles. [/b]
In this hypotical 1/2 world, would there still be a wall between communism and capitalism? Would capitialist be risking thier lives to jump over the wall into a communist country or would it be the other way around?

[Forward Union]

If every aspect of capitalism must be erased, then how is this going to be achieved in practice ? Are you going to be watching everyone to make sure that no-one "behaves like a capitalist" ?

Im interested by your use of the term "you" who are we??? do you mean communists? because we don't plan on having any form of power...who would there be to not watch or not to watch people?


And if you don't recognize the property rights of citizens in your own country, what makes you think that the property rights of people outside your country are going to be recognized ? I have a feeling they won't be.

In a communist society there would be no nations.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by OleMarxco+May 14 2005, 08:33 PM--> (OleMarxco @ May 14 2005, 08:33 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 08:26 PM


The "Morality" argument is OF COURSE bullshit, we won't invade ANYONE. We will only try of to be educating THEIR citizens to revolute - and if they agree, they will. Any invasion is ILLEGETIMATE IMPERIALISM styles. [/b]
But if the proletariot do try to rebel because we told them to and the bourgeousy suppressed the revolution, why should we not invade? It would seem obvious that the majority of people want communism, and to deny helping them to achieve that goal would seem selfish.

Therefore, I can't see how our actions could be considered imperalist.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:34 AM
It would seem obvious that the majority of people want communism,
Do they ? Evidence ? Another demogogue...

[Professor Moneybags]

Im interested by your use of the term "you" who are we??? do you mean communists? because we don't plan on having any form of power...who would there be to not watch or not to watch people?

Evasion.


In a communist society there would be no nations.

Evasion.

[Deepest Red]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 11:15 AM

Im interested by your use of the term "you" who are we??? do you mean communists? because we don't plan on having any form of power...who would there be to not watch or not to watch people?

Evasion.


In a communist society there would be no nations.

Evasion.
Evasion

[D_Bokk]

If every aspect of capitalism must be erased, then how is this going to be achieved in practice ? Are you going to be watching everyone to make sure that no-one "behaves like a capitalist" ?Yes. There will remain some people who believe in Capitalism, however only the ones who voice their opinions and call for action will be imprisoned (Atleast in my ideal Socialist State they will be). I don't see how this is any different than any other Revolution. The new government must keep a careful eye on it's people to ensure a counter-revolution doesn't take place. After the US gained it's independence from Britain, do you think the new government didn't keep an eye on the people who supported the British during the war?

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Communism cannot exist with the pressures of capitalism still alive.

Could you back that one up?

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+May 15 2005, 11:13 AM--> (Professor Moneybags @ May 15 2005, 11:13 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:34 AM
It would seem obvious that the majority of people want communism
Do they? Evidence? Another demogogue... [/b]
Of course you are right, that is bullshit to say. But trough a social-analytical third-person point-of-view, it is for the best of the majority of people....and not the minority (the Burgeouis&#33;) but who cares about THEM, right? Most folk might not just know it, but I am sure they would secretly agree if you presented it in a subtle way -- If you present it chained with the word "Communism" they will jump back on defencive with their reactionary mindset of which they have been raised with <_<


"Stalinist authotorian&#045;fool"
......however only the ones who voice their opinions and call for action will be imprisoned (Atleast in my ideal Socialist State they will be).....

You irashful GIT, that is the exact same thing as WE are doing now&#33; Shall WE became as the monsters WE hate? Hell no&#33; If they manage to agitate the people, then so be it&#33; We will only stop them if they FORCE a counter-revolution withouth the backing of the people&#33; :angry:

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 14 2005, 04:29 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 14 2005, 04:29 PM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 09:15 PM
It depends what you mean by communist. If you are in the Chinese govenment then you mught consider yourself a communist, but you are still a capitalist. If you are a communist like say Castro, then you my find yourself with capitalist "friends", but that would really only be out of desparation.

Communism cannot exist with the pressures of capitalism still alive.
I don&#39;t understand that?

You mean if you split a theoritcal world in 1/2, once side communist and one side free market.

Communism can not exist?

Why? [/b]
I thought we were talking about reality. The reality is, that communism is an idea that is generally supported by the downtrodden (and yes in the west by a few middle class kids), it under these circumstances that "communist" find thenselves "at war" if you will, with the much more powerful capitalists. Therefore many of them see no other choice but to move to a form of "state monopoly capitaism" otherwise known as "socialism".

If you we&#39;re to have a theoretical world where half of it were genuine classless "communism", you would find that not only could it exist, but that the "capitalist half" would be buckling under the pressures of "communism". And it is the capitalists that you would find building "Berlin walls" and such.

In our capitalist reality, communism cannot exist, atleast not on a scale like China. Western Europe might be able to pull it off, however. :D

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:58 PM

Communism cannot exist with the pressures of capitalism still alive.

Could you back that one up?
Okay, maybe I worded that one wrong. True classles communism, at least on a large scale, cannot exist while the world is still controlled by capitalism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15 2005, 12:05 PM
Evasion
I have evaded nothing. Do you want to answer for him ?

[Professor Moneybags]

If you we&#39;re to have a theoretical world where half of it were genuine classless "communism", you would find that not only could it exist, but that the "capitalist half" would be buckling under the pressures of "communism".

Pressures such as what ?


And it is the capitalists that you would find building "Berlin walls" and such.

Except that in practice, the exact opposite has been true (without exception).

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by OleMarxo
You irashful GIT, that is the exact same thing as WE are doing now&#33; Shall WE became as the monsters WE hate? Hell no&#33; If they manage to agitate the people, then so be it&#33; We will only stop them if they FORCE a counter-revolution withouth the backing of the people&#33;
I see. So, in other words, you will allow the Capitalist living in a Communist country do as they please? Capitalism can be very appealing to anyone, if they&#39;re only given certain parts of the information. As an example, the "American Dream" of creating your own business and living "the good life" was so appealing to people around the world that many of them flocked to the US. Capitalism could fairly easily gain a large backing and cause more incarceration, violence and political disruption than simply putting those who oppose Communism in jails. Your ideal state in which people will follow the rules will never occur. Humans will always strive to become better than others, albeit not necessarily materialistic greed, but it can lead to that... and we all know what greed leads too.

To tell you the truth, I like authority. I believe that authority is absolutely necessary for humans to continue to advance intellectually and as a society. However my gripe with Anarchy is for a different thread on a different day.

I&#39;m a Leninist, by the way, not a Stalinist. Your immaturity doesn&#39;t further the cause of Communism, but more than likely hinders it - those who revert to name calling will never get their opinions recognized by anyone... just a little advice for further arguments you may get into.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+May 16 2005, 09:38 PM--> (D_Bokk @ May 16 2005, 09:38 PM)
OleMarxo
You irashful GIT, that is the exact same thing as WE are doing now&#33; Shall WE became as the monsters WE hate? Hell no&#33; If they manage to agitate the people, then so be it&#33; We will only stop them if they FORCE a counter-revolution withouth the backing of the people&#33;
I see. So, in other words, you will allow the Capitalist living in a Communist country do as they please? Capitalism can be very appealing to anyone, if they&#39;re only given certain parts of the information. As an example, the "American Dream" of creating your own business and living "the good life" was so appealing to people around the world that many of them flocked to the US. Capitalism could fairly easily gain a large backing and cause more incarceration, violence and political disruption than simply putting those who oppose Capitalism in jails. Your ideal state in which people will follow the rules will never occur. Humans will always strive to become better than others, albeit not necessarily materialistic greed, but it can lead to that... and we all know what greed leads too.

To tell you the truth, I like authority. I believe that authority is absolutely necessary for humans to continue to advance intellectually and as a society. However my gripe with Anarchy is for a different thread on a different day.

I&#39;m a Leninist, by the way, not a Stalinist. Your immaturity doesn&#39;t further the cause of Communism, but more than likely hinders it - those who revert to name calling will never get their opinions recognized by anyone... just a little advice for further arguments you may get into. [/b]
By what exactly do you mean "as they please"?

No, they can&#39;t go and hold a gun to someone&#39;s head forcing them to work. No, they can&#39;t rape women. Exactly what makes you inclined to say that these actions are "human nature"?

And as for authority in general: Don&#39;t you find it harder to learn when someone forcing you to do it. If so then live as you please, but stay away from my business.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by redcanada
By what exactly do you mean "as they please"?

No, they can&#39;t go and hold a gun to someone&#39;s head forcing them to work. No, they can&#39;t rape women. Exactly what makes you inclined to say that these actions are "human nature"?

And as for authority in general: Don&#39;t you find it harder to learn when someone forcing you to do it. If so then live as you please, but stay away from my business.
By "as they please" I meant along the lines of creating a say, RevolutionaryRight.com web site and inciting people to overthrow Communism and reinstate Capitalism.

I&#39;ve never had a problem with authority forcing me to learn. I usually only really learn the things I&#39;m interested in, the rest I forget. Had no one forced me to take History classes, I would&#39;ve never taken any and may very well just be a conforming Capitalist right now. It&#39;s not like they outright said "Communism is a superior system," but all they had to say was it was a system that focuses on equality - I took it from there. They force to open you up to new things, that in most cases you may have not learned about on your own... they&#39;re doing us a favor. They do, in some cases, force their ideals on their students, but this only works on the weak minded people.

[Deepest Red]

And it is the capitalists that you would find building "Berlin walls" and such.

Except that in practice, the exact opposite has been true (without exception).

Because the USSR was communist was it? Tell me, was there a state? Was there class? I think you will agree the answer is an obvious yes to both of these.



Im interested by your use of the term "you" who are we??? do you mean communists? because we don&#39;t plan on having any form of power...who would there be to not watch or not to watch people?

Evasion.

My understanding of this argument is that half the world is in &#39;end-goal&#39; communism, in which case there wouldn&#39;t be anyone watching whether communism was achieved via Anarchism, Leninism, Maoism, whatever (although I have serious reservations about those last too working, personally). If we are talking from a Leninist perspective however in a society which is in the &#39;transitionary stage&#39; then yes we are talking pretty much about a police state to prevent the counter-revolution. Myself being an anarchist communist I wouldn&#39;t agree with &#39;taking control of the state&#39; in any form, an anarchist revolution would be decentralised with great emphasis on avoiding any centralisation of power. There would be no one to answer to but the will of the people. I do not believe that after a successful revolution people would be willing to let themselves be exploited by any would-be capitalists nor would they hand over the means of production to them willingly, that would be rather silly.

After communism had been properly established for a while I can see no reason for anyone wanting to be a capitalist in the first place, though you may of course disagree :P



And if you don&#39;t recognize the property rights of citizens in your own country, what makes you think that the property rights of people outside your country are going to be recognized ? I have a feeling they won&#39;t be.


I would be greatful if you could elaborate a little for me here, my inferior communist brain doesn&#39;t quite understand your point :)

[Professor Moneybags]

Because the USSR was communist was it? Tell me, was there a state? Was there class? I think you will agree the answer is an obvious yes to both of these.

Utterly irrelevent. The economic conditions cause by them following (or even half following) the communist doctrines lead to an exodus of skilled labour. The same phenomenon occured in England during the 70&#39;s, called the "brain drain".



And if you don&#39;t recognize the property rights of citizens in your own country, what makes you think that the property rights of people outside your country are going to be recognized ? I have a feeling they won&#39;t be.


I would be greatful if you could elaborate a little for me here, my inferior communist brain doesn&#39;t quite understand your point :)

Who is more likely to steal, a man who does not recognize property rights, or a man who does ?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 04:46 PM

If every aspect of capitalism must be erased, then how is this going to be achieved in practice ? Are you going to be watching everyone to make sure that no-one "behaves like a capitalist" ?Yes. There will remain some people who believe in Capitalism, however only the ones who voice their opinions and call for action will be imprisoned (Atleast in my ideal Socialist State they will be). I don&#39;t see how this is any different than any other Revolution. The new government must keep a careful eye on it&#39;s people to ensure a counter-revolution doesn&#39;t take place. After the US gained it&#39;s independence from Britain, do you think the new government didn&#39;t keep an eye on the people who supported the British during the war?
And there is the reason I am opposed to communism.

Castro has shown us that the revolution is never quite safe or far enough along for the instigators to step down from power.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Comrade Eventuality+May 15 2005, 12:05 PM--> (Comrade Eventuality @ May 15 2005, 12:05 PM)
Professor [email protected] 15 2005, 11:15 AM

Im interested by your use of the term "you" who are we??? do you mean communists? because we don&#39;t plan on having any form of power...who would there be to not watch or not to watch people?

Evasion.


In a communist society there would be no nations.

Evasion.
Evasion [/b]
Soooooo.

Do you think that in a world that is split in half with a wall between a communist sytem and capitalist syste. Will people be jumping over the wall to get to the other side? Which side will they be jumping into to?

[Deepest Red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:01 PM
Soooooo.

Do you think that in a world that is split in half with a wall between a communist sytem and capitalist syste. Will people be jumping over the wall to get to the other side? Which side will they be jumping into to?
This somewhat obviously just boils down to opinion, of course I&#39;ll say that people will be jumping over to the communist side&#33; :P

I don&#39;t think people would be stumbling over one another to leave an egalitarian society. You of course may disagree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Who is more likely to steal, a man who does not recognize property rights, or a man who does ?

I&#39;m sure you must&#39;ve had the private property/personal property argument before? The means of production are owned by everyone, not all property. Its not a case of sharing toothbrushes or walking into a strangers house uninvited and eating his food.

Under communism everyone would be economic equals, this would seriously decrease the will to steal things, if not removing it all together.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Comrade Eventuality+May 21 2005, 08:02 PM--> (Comrade Eventuality @ May 21 2005, 08:02 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 05:01 PM
Soooooo.

Do you think that in a world that is split in half with a wall between a communist sytem and capitalist syste. Will people be jumping over the wall to get to the other side? Which side will they be jumping into to?
This somewhat obviously just boils down to opinion, of course I&#39;ll say that people will be jumping over to the communist side&#33; :P

I don&#39;t think people would be stumbling over one another to leave an egalitarian society. You of course may disagree.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Who is more likely to steal, a man who does not recognize property rights, or a man who does ?

I&#39;m sure you must&#39;ve had the private property/personal property argument before? The means of production are owned by everyone, not all property. Its not a case of sharing toothbrushes or walking into a strangers house uninvited and eating his food.

Under communism everyone would be economic equals, this would seriously decrease the will to steal things, if not removing it all together. [/b]
Oh.

You mean the wall will be for capitalist to keep thier people in and not for communist to keep thier people in.

[Deepest Red]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:05 AM
Oh.

You mean the wall will be for capitalist to keep thier people in and not for communist to keep thier people in.
Yes.

Though I&#39;m not sure such a wall could exist in reality, I think it more likely that there would be total victory for either the revolution or counter-revolution.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Comrade Eventuality+May 23 2005, 08:46 PM--> (Comrade Eventuality @ May 23 2005, 08:46 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 01:05 AM
Oh.

You mean the wall will be for capitalist to keep thier people in and not for communist to keep thier people in.
Yes.

Though I&#39;m not sure such a wall could exist in reality, I think it more likely that there would be total victory for either the revolution or counter-revolution. [/b]
But what about the concept of:

"Communism can not exist with the influence of capitalism"

Isn&#39;t that statement Marxist theory?

If the wall existed, why would Marxism have a tough time surviving? Would life in the communist side suck in comparison to the capitalist side that communism would have trouble surviving? Would communism look bad compared to capitialism? Then why would people be jumping into the communist side? So then your probably right, Marixism can not exist with a wall between the two sides. Marxism would appear to suck so much in comparison with capitialism that the wall would never last for long.

Total victory? All around the world? All at once? Have you seen it lately? It is not quite going your way.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 16 2005, 09:37 PM

If you we&#39;re to have a theoretical world where half of it were genuine classless "communism", you would find that not only could it exist, but that the "capitalist half" would be buckling under the pressures of "communism".

Pressures such as what ?


And it is the capitalists that you would find building "Berlin walls" and such.

Except that in practice, the exact opposite has been true (without exception).
"Pressures such as what ?"

Why becasuse we would be feasting on your babies ofcourse, I thought that was obvious. <_<

Seriously though, "communism" would only exist in an advanced industrial nation. There would be superior wealth to that in the capitalist half.

That wealth would be spread better, there would be no need to provide cheap labour for the capitalist half. Capitlaism thrives off of this, and would have to find the cheap labour within it&#39;s borders, causing severe turmoil that could only be helped by moving towards "socialism".

"Except that in practice, the exact opposite has been true (without exception)."

Except you completely ignored This part of my post: "I thought we were talking about reality. The reality is, that communism is an idea that is generally supported by the downtrodden (and yes in the west by a few middle class kids), it under these circumstances that "communist" find thenselves "at war" if you will, with the much more powerful capitalists. Therefore many of them see no other choice but to move to a form of "state monopoly capitaism" otherwise known as "socialism"."

EVASION&#33; :lol:

[Deepest Red]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 24 2005, 05:22 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 24 2005, 05:22 AM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23 2005, 08:46 PM

[email protected] 22 2005, 01:05 AM
Oh.

You mean the wall will be for capitalist to keep thier people in and not for communist to keep thier people in.
Yes.

Though I&#39;m not sure such a wall could exist in reality, I think it more likely that there would be total victory for either the revolution or counter-revolution.
But what about the concept of:

"Communism can not exist with the influence of capitalism"

Isn&#39;t that statement Marxist theory?

If the wall existed, why would Marxism have a tough time surviving? Would life in the communist side suck in comparison to the capitalist side that communism would have trouble surviving? Would communism look bad compared to capitialism? Then why would people be jumping into the communist side? So then your probably right, Marixism can not exist with a wall between the two sides. Marxism would appear to suck so much in comparison with capitialism that the wall would never last for long.

Total victory? All around the world? All at once? Have you seen it lately? It is not quite going your way. [/b]
I am not a Marxist, though I do believe that statement to be true. It does not, however, have any relevance to this argument; we talking of a world divided in half, with end-stage communism making up the social & economic structure of one of them, half of the world is a pretty big geographical area, I&#39;m assuming that there would be no resource only available to one side, that is, both halves are of equal strength.

Now, lets look at each side.

On the capitalist side we have most of its wealth concentrated in the hands of a few along with political and other coercive power such as the police and military. If any of the workers in this half decide they want higher wages or more benefits etc. then they will have to strike. Both the action of striking and their demands (if met) are going to cost the bosses alot of money, how can they avoid losing profits? A) Use force, make various arrests to scare the strikers back to work, or use more direct force and send in the riot police to break up the demonstration. B) Buy out any union leaders, give them a small amount of what they want and make up some excuse as to why they cannot have all they were campaigning for. C) If the workers are too powerful for some reason then give in to their demands, only to retract them all in the coming years.

On the communist side everyone is equal, everyone has as much wealth as society produces and there is no coercive power held over anyone.

Yeah the communist side really does look pretty crap in comparison

Please tell me where I said a revolution would magically happen everywhere at once, I&#39;m interested to know.

Neither did I say I thought we were on the brink of seeing the revolution.

Yes, total victory, one way or the other. The rebels will hardly allow exploitation continue in any form, just as the capitalist forces will crush all remaining opposition to themselves if they are victors.

[NovelGentry]

But what about the concept of:

"Communism can not exist with the influence of capitalism"

Isn&#39;t that statement Marxist theory?

Yes/No. For communism to exist there are two very simple parts, one dependent on the other. The first and foremost is the material conditions. The means of production must advance far enough to ensure as little or no shortages of necessities whatsoever. Second to this material development, and progressing with it is the consciousness of the people, which changes with their material reality.

Look at how quickly capitalism has advanced society in terms of productive forces. Within 150 years we have produce more, invented more, made our lives millions of times easier than all the years before that. We could build a pyramid in a day with a few crane operators and some guys with jack hammers rather than thousands of slaves.

Marx saw capitalism as the manifestation of these advancements, but the advancements from feudalism. Machines came into existence that allowed for production to increase. Property rights effectively did not exist for the general population, but now people had things to sell, they needed materials, they needed a market for it too -- so out of all the small merchants, handicraftsmen, wealthy peasants, is born the bourgeoisie. It was that technological advancement that allowed that to happen, and their consciousness and their eventual revolution and progression towards a society that fit that necessity made sense.

The the supply and demand mechanism is a product of material reality too. It was an obvious necessity for early markets, and although developed in theory, can and obviously would develop quite naturally in a "free market."

But as supply becomes easier and easier to fill, more and more possible... as technology changes again, does the supply and demand mechanism not become obsolete?

How can it not? The capitalists then (and do now in many instances) artificially cap the market. They limit it where it need not be limited, actually wasting a good portion of their own wealth, destroying what they can. Taking down the old, downsizing. Less workers are needed, more supply can be created, on and on, spreading their markets, taking over markets. What will happen when that technology advances to that point.

I&#39;ve yet to get an answer from any capitalist that made sense. How does the existing property relations and existing constructs (the market, supply and demand) not get obsoleted? What do you think happens if it does?

This is Marx&#39;s core argument. It happened just as crudly in every previous society which encompassed an age of productive forces, capped at both ends by the limitations of the old means, and the limitations of the new ones. It happens in minor scales even today and throughout history -- but with a single class in power, a class that will always be reactionary, leaning towards their "secure" and known system, why would we just progress? Why would they allow it? They don&#39;t, and they won&#39;t. The same way the aristocracy didn&#39;t care to give way to bourgeois democracy.

Unless you stop technology you, stop the material progression of humanity, you cannot put an end to this. You may not agree communism is what follows, but certainly you can&#39;t expect capitalism makes sense when it&#39;s primary function, supply and demand, is completely superfluous.

If you want to know when communism occurs -- here it is:


... after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but itself life&#39;s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs&#33; -- Karl Marx

[Che1990]

Well in my opinion it is impossible for communism and capitalism to eist to gether (obviously) because our ideals and fundamentals are totally opposite. But we can still be &#39;friends&#39;. Although most cappies I know are ignorant, fascist, right-wing bastards who don&#39;t give a shit about who they are exploiting and how badly they are exploiting them.