Communism is inherently flawed. [Archive]

Imperator

27th July 2005, 04:39

Michael De Panama

27th July 2005, 04:48

1. Violence is a very natural thing.

2. I see no reason why an athiestic system of government wouldn't last. But even if so, communism is religious enough in nature to be capable of replacing whatever would be lost in a society without religion.

Imperator

27th July 2005, 04:53

Sorry, a worthy attempt, but ultimately a poor response.

Violence is part of human nature, but it is an evil we must avoid. Violence tears lives apart, creates pain and suffering, and ultimately creates greater evils than it solves. Communism embraces violence as a means to and end, and so far, I have not seen one Communist revolution in history actually suceed to produce anytthing desirable. The USSR quickly devolved into an agrarian totalitarian nightmare, and from what I have heard from refugees from Vietnam, the Communist system there has made life hell. There are ways other than violence to enact change, as Jesus Christ of Martin Luther King showed us, that are far more effective that violence revolutions.

Fake religions and Gods will not satisfy Man. Communism creates Gods, and in doing so, leaves Man empty.

27th July 2005, 04:57

1: Communism (Marxism) is inherently violent. Whereas Marx doesn't call for violence, his writings call for the worker to overthrow the state, and there is no possible way to do that without violence. Lenin, on the other hand, in his State and Revolution clearly calls for violence in the uprising.

So what?

2: Communism is inherently atheistic. In denying the existence of God, Marxism denies Man's basic and natural urge to know the divine. Any system of government which is atheistic is fundamentally flawed and will not last. History proves this.

basic and natural urge to know the divine? I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a "natural urge." Human nature is nonexistant. Capitalism teaches human nature as a matter of self-preservation. And because something is atheist doesnt mean that it is against god.

So, if you are religious, then Communism is a totally flawed and illogical system.

You can still be religious and believe it. Communism was founded on dialectical materialism, which most people that are religious nowadays still believe in.

If you are not religious, it still is a violence idelogy which inherently ends up with disasterous results.

The end result is only disasterous if you're a member of the bourgouisie. If you're a member of the proletariat (the majority of people are) then it ends in your favor.

Don't believe me? Well, you're wrong. Yup, nothing anyone says can negate the truth I have said here.

You have not even proven these as truths.

Marxism is inherently flawed, and will NEVER work as a viable system.

First off marxism isn't a "violence ideology" like you said it was earlier. Marxism started as a philosophical viewpoint, then evolved into the point to where communism has developed from it. Communism isn't violent. The means of getting there are, yes, but communism isn't violent. The only reason that revolution is mentioned is because it is the ONLY way of advancing society towards communism. It is the only way, meaning nothing else will work.

Only in theory books.

What's a theory book?

Ok you havent even attacked communism which I'm guessing is what you are talking about. It sounds like you don't know much about it either. If you want to learn more, check out the links in the "learning" forum. Maybe read the communist manifesto and see what wikipedia has to say about it.

Imperator

27th July 2005, 05:02

Hey DUDE, I just took Political Science 433: Marxism and Radical Thought, I have learned about Marxism from other places than the internet. Marxism is an interesting theory from an academic viewpoint, but it is an ultimately violence system. It breeds violence and causes the masses to commit wanton acts of destruction. Read Lenin or Trotsky if you don't believe me, they actually CALL for violence.

Or, look at Stalin's regime. Not that that is a very fair way to critique Socialism, as Stalin was an exceptionally stupid and paranoid despot, perhaps one of the most idiotic leaders of the last 250 years. Because of Stalin, atleast 30,000,000 people died needlessly, some in horrible conditions, such as the Ukranians or those in the Gulags.

27th July 2005, 05:04

Violence tears lives apart, creates pain and suffering, and ultimately creates greater evils than it solves.

Violence stopped the nazis from winning world war 2.

Communism embraces violence as a means to and end, and so far, I have not seen one Communist revolution in history actually suceed to produce anytthing desirable.

The US revolutionary war embraced violence. What's the difference? And every communist revolution in history has been poorly attempted and prematurely started. Vanguards don't help.

The USSR quickly devolved into an agrarian totalitarian nightmare, and from what I have heard from refugees from Vietnam, the Communist system there has made life hell.

Since the definition of communism is "a classless, stateless society" neither of these countries have any relevance. Know what was worse for vietnam? The United States invading.

There are ways other than violence to enact change, as Jesus Christ of Martin Luther King showed us, that are far more effective that violence revolutions.

MLK reformed the system. Jesus did not change the system. Whenever a new system starts, violence is needed as the old system will not give itself up. And since communism is a system that will replace capitalism, violence is necessary.

Fake religions and Gods will not satisfy Man. Communism creates Gods, and in doing so, leaves Man empty.

All religions and gods are fake. How does communism create gods, and leave man empty? More detail, please.

LSD

27th July 2005, 05:05

1: Communism (Marxism) is inherently violent. Whereas Marx doesn't call for violence, his writings call for the worker to overthrow the state, and there is no possible way to do that without violence.

That's the revolution, not the society.

It took a violent revolution to create republics too. Does that make democracy "inherently violent"?

2: Communism is inherently atheistic. In denying the existence of God, Marxism denies Man's basic and natural urge to know the divine.

And you have proof of this "basic and natural urge"?

Sure, as humans, we have a natural desire to understand the world, but I see no need for "God(s)" in that equation.

Any system of government which is atheistic is fundamentally flawed and will not last. History proves this.

No system of government lasts "forever". But quite a few obstensibly atheist governments have stood the test of time. Indeed, even the US is a relevent example!

So, if you are religious, then Communism is a totally flawed and illogical system.

But that's only because religion is "totally flawed and illogical".

Fake religions and Gods will not satisfy Man.

All religions are "fake". That's the nature of religion.

27th July 2005, 05:07

Hey DUDE, I just took Political Science 433: Marxism and Radical Thought, I have learned about Marxism from other places than the internet.

Congratulations! You took a capitalist course in marxism that was probably horribly biased. If you'd like to see my bookshelf I'd love to show you all my communist literature.

Marxism is an interesting theory from an academic viewpoint, but it is an ultimately violence system. It breeds violence and causes the masses to commit wanton acts of destruction. Read Lenin or Trotsky if you don't believe me, they actually CALL for violence.

Why are you saying that marxism is violent then providing evidence saying that lenin and trotsky called for violence? Marxism isn't Leninism or Trotskyism.

Or, look at Stalin's regime. Not that that is a very fair way to critique Socialism, as Stalin was an exceptionally stupid and paranoid despot, perhaps one of the most idiotic leaders of the last 250 years. Because of Stalin, atleast 30,000,000 people died needlessly, some in horrible conditions, such as the Ukranians or those in the Gulags.

The USSR was hardly socialist. And whether or not Stalin was a bad man is constantly being questioned.

Michael De Panama

27th July 2005, 05:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:53 PM
Sorry, a worthy attempt, but ultimately a poor response.

Violence is part of human nature, but it is an evil we must avoid. Violence tears lives apart, creates pain and suffering, and ultimately creates greater evils than it solves. Communism embraces violence as a means to and end, and so far, I have not seen one Communist revolution in history actually suceed to produce anytthing desirable. The USSR quickly devolved into an agrarian totalitarian nightmare, and from what I have heard from refugees from Vietnam, the Communist system there has made life hell. There are ways other than violence to enact change, as Jesus Christ of Martin Luther King showed us, that are far more effective that violence revolutions.

Fake religions and Gods will not satisfy Man. Communism creates Gods, and in doing so, leaves Man empty.
A worthy attempt at what? I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Violence is a part of human nature, and all of human nature should be embraced.

I consider both Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King to be masochistic cowards who were ultimately murdered by smarter men who didn't have a problem with violence.

I think the best thing for our species would be a return to our bestial nature.

Cookie-cutter religions, in general, don't satisfy me. I believe there is truth in all religion. The universe is a much more complicated thing than what is served up in fast food style religious beliefs.

violencia.Proletariat

27th July 2005, 05:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:39 PM

2: Communism is inherently atheistic. In denying the existence of God, Marxism denies Man's basic and natural urge to know the divine. Any system of government which is atheistic is fundamentally flawed and will not last. History proves this.

ok, well communism isnt a system of government so we dont have to worry about that.

Imperator

27th July 2005, 05:15

Oh well, I don't care what you think. You are wrong, even though I lack the rhetorical skills to prove you wrong.

The fact is, my side is stronger, and always wins. COmmunism has been defeated repeatedly and will continue to wither away and die. It doesn't matter if I can out-debate you, my side has already won. Marxism and Comunism are dying ideas in the world. The last Communist strongholds (Cuba and China) are on the verge of collapse and are already succombing to Capitalism, the most logical of all systems.

LSD

27th July 2005, 05:17

The fact is, my side is stronger, and always wins.

Kind of like how feudalism "always won" in 1500?

Times change.

Oh well, I don't care what you think. You are wrong

You, sir, are a consumate idiot.

27th July 2005, 05:19

Oh well, I don't care what you think. You are wrong, even though I lack the rhetorical skills to prove you wrong.

We just proved you wrong, so until you prove us otherwise, you're wrong!

The fact is, my side is stronger, and always wins.

Nothing "always wins". Eventually your side will lose. That's life. Deal with it.

COmmunism has been defeated repeatedly and will continue to wither away and die.

I'm sorry to say that communism has never been defeated as it's an idea. Attempts at communism in the past? Communist states always fail, everybody here acknowledges it. Therefore this isn't very relevant. Communism hasn't been withering away; contrary to your belief, it is actually gaining momentum again as proven by venezuela and others.

It doesn't matter if I can out-debate you, my side has already won.

You are wrong. You can't out debate us because your side is wrong. Your side hasn't already won as your side is constantly fighting a defensive battle.

Marxism and Comunism are dying ideas in the world.

Marxism and Communism are re-emerging in the world.

The last Communist strongholds (Cuba and China) are on the verge of collapse and are already succombing to Capitalism, the most logical of all systems.

Neither are communism. Cuba is socialist, China is state-capitalist. Cuba isn't "succombing" to capitalism, and venezuela is gradually becoming socialist, so new strongholds are emerging because the idea is beomcing more popular. When people see how capitalism screws them they open their eyes.

Michael De Panama

27th July 2005, 05:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 11:15 PM
Oh well, I don't care what you think. You are wrong, even though I lack the rhetorical skills to prove you wrong.

The fact is, my side is stronger, and always wins. COmmunism has been defeated repeatedly and will continue to wither away and die. It doesn't matter if I can out-debate you, my side has already won. Marxism and Comunism are dying ideas in the world. The last Communist strongholds (Cuba and China) are on the verge of collapse and are already succombing to Capitalism, the most logical of all systems.
You are a pacifist.

Based on that alone, your side is weaker, and will always lose.

Your side, no matter if you believe in captialism, communism, fascism, or anarchy, will always lose.

Professor Moneybags

27th July 2005, 17:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:57 AM
Capitalism teaches human nature as a matter of self-preservation.
You'd be extremely short-lived if it wasn't.

The end result is only disasterous if you're a member of the bourgouisie. If you're a member of the proletariat (the majority of people are) then it ends in your favor.

Or so you hope.

The only reason that revolution is mentioned is because it is the ONLY way of advancing society towards communism. It is the only way, meaning nothing else will work.

That shows how much reason lies behind it, doesn't it ?

LSD

27th July 2005, 17:44

That shows how much reason lies behind it, doesn't it ?

You're not seriously saying that the nescessity of a violent revolution negates the validity of the ideology, are you?

I would remind you that it took revolution(s) to create republicanism as well.

27th July 2005, 18:05

Capitalism teaches human nature as a matter of self-preservation.

You'd be extremely short-lived if it wasn't.

I'd be extremely short-lived if what? Capitalism would be extremely short-lived.

red_orchestra

27th July 2005, 19:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:39 AM
Communism is a failed economic, social and political system. There are two main reasons that Communism or scientific socialism will NEVER work in the civilized world and why Marxism is inherently flawed and immoral.

1: Communism (Marxism) is inherently violent. Whereas Marx doesn't call for violence, his writings call for the worker to overthrow the state, and there is no possible way to do that without violence. Lenin, on the other hand, in his State and Revolution clearly calls for violence in the uprising.

2: Communism is inherently atheistic. In denying the existence of God, Marxism denies Man's basic and natural urge to know the divine. Any system of government which is atheistic is fundamentally flawed and will not last. History proves this.

So, if you are religious, then Communism is a totally flawed and illogical system. If you are not religious, it still is a violence idelogy which inherently ends up with disasterous results. Don't believe me? Well, you're wrong. Yup, nothing anyone says can negate the truth I have said here. Marxism is inherently flawed, and will NEVER work as a viable system. Only in theory books.

1. Yes, revolutions can be very violent. But sometimes this is a necessity especially when their are governments which are oppressing their people. Marxism is about liberation and the promotion of the working class. Nothing wrong with that! Lennin led a violent revolution....your point is?

2. Communism in itself is a form of belief. It replaces myth and supersition with pure logic.

Andy Bowden

27th July 2005, 19:43

Those who complain of the violence neccessary to overthrow Capitalism should remember how violent Capitalist society is at present, and the past. The coup in Chile, invasion of Iraq, genocide in East Timor spring to my mind. <_<

Anarchist Freedom

27th July 2005, 20:01

Pacifism will always lose to violence.

Hegemonicretribution

28th July 2005, 01:06

I doubt the perfectness of Marxism, as nothing really is, but I believe some of the ideas in there fundamental to what I believe is social progress. There are other ideologies I have looked into and found little to no worth in. If you can provide me details of which side you are part of, I am sure that I could find many flaws.

I realise that this above wasn't exactly what you were getting at, however I will say that the violence advocated by Lenin, and Trotskey is a little bit of a problem, and something that could be worked on, but not a flaw as such with Marxism.

I don't know why you asume religion is essential. You can't seriously just make an assertion, and provide nothing more than an observation of failed, unrelated movements.

spartafc

28th July 2005, 02:57

1) What's your point?

2) religion is a private matter.

spartafc

28th July 2005, 02:58

If you raise criticism of violence i'm presuming you are a pacifist critic? Because capitalism seems plenty violent.

Zapata's Ghost

28th July 2005, 03:54

Are you honestly a capitalist who looks down on violence? Because I sir, am shocked if that is the case! French Revolution.....extremely violent......American Revolution.....extremely violent...Want to know why? Because it is the most effective way of achieving seperation from the ruling class, because ya know why? Talking to your leader is not going to make them change their ways if their current system is benefitting them. It's simple fact, if you were in power of millions of people and were the most powerful person in your country, would you give it up because a certain percentage of the population is unhappy? You damn well wouldn't and you know it. Now don't come here telling us we're wrong because we have different views than you, that's idiotic and you obviously won't win your argument. As communists, we have to deal with people like you everyday, who say that communism is doomed from the start, just because it's ideals differ from your own, and once you realize how biased and close-minded that is, you'll never be able to accept communism for what it is.

Hegemonicretribution

28th July 2005, 14:28

Were those last three posts directed at me :blink:?

OleMarxco

28th July 2005, 14:53

What do you think? :rolleyes:
Silly ;)

As for the question itself...
Well, that's left to see, is it not?
-Socialism- may have been inherently
flawed and become State-Capitalism - maybe -
but Socialism itself is not the point of Socialism
but Communism - free gift economy, communes
and no borders, properity, etc., - which is unachievable
with only a few lands here and there positive to it (a.k.a,
yeah, we (the proletars) "need world-domination", so you
got that myth confirmed...blah-blah, but not for a despot's
need.......perhaps egoistic, what the hell.....but Socialism
should not be one party-leader, but equal members from
all professions. That's atleast, one envision of it. Better
organized than it is niauw....local, decantralized-power...
rules! :)

Professor Moneybags

28th July 2005, 16:14

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 27 2005, 04:44 PM
You're not seriously saying that the nescessity of a violent revolution negates the validity of the ideology, are you?

I would remind you that it took revolution(s) to create republicanism as well.
Don't differentiate the initiation of force from its retaliatory use, whatever you do.

LSD

28th July 2005, 16:21

Don't differentiate the initiation of force from its retaliatory use, whatever you do.

And all revolutionary groups in history initiated force.

Yes, you could say that they did it in response to prior oppression and that is was nescessary to defend themselves from its continuation. But, nonetheless, they still initiated the force in question.

The fact is, no matter how you defend it, the same justifications used to rationalize the "fonuding fathers" use of force can be used to defend a communist revolutions use of force. Whether you call it "retaliatory" or "initiation" or both.

Ownthink

28th July 2005, 20:06

I just now read this and laughed my ass off. Really, a society with SOME violence and no belief in a "god"? What the fuck are you, the moral police?

I think that a society born out of uprising against oppressive leaders, a society that haas had to fight for it's very freedom from oppressive Capitalist rulers, a society made up of people who also happen to be logical people who happen to not believe in a "god" is a very good society.

Professor Moneybags

29th July 2005, 14:31

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 03:21 PM
And all revolutionary groups in history initiated force.

The founding fathers didn't.

Yes, you could say that they did it in response to prior oppression and that is was nescessary to defend themselves from its continuation.

Then force wasn't initiated then, was it ? Acting in response to the initiation of force is retalliation.

But, nonetheless, they still initiated the force in question.

Retalliating isn't initiating.

The fact is, no matter how you defend it, the same justifications used to rationalize the "fonuding fathers" use of force can be used to defend a communist revolutions use of force.

Proof that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

The founding fathers were being dictated to by a tyrant who had no right to rule anyone. Demanding independence from such a tryant is not an initiation of force. In this case, it was King Gerorge who initiated force and the founding fathers who were retalliating.

You, on the other hand are planning grand theft involving the siezure of property (of people who are not tyrants, have done nothing to you and owe you nothing). That makes you the initiator of force.

LSD

29th July 2005, 16:09

The founding fathers were being dictated to by a tyrant who had no right to rule anyone.

Do you really not know what I'm going to say here?

sigh

Today, the workers are being dictated to by economic tyants who have no right to rule anyone. Therefor a populist revolution is an act of retaliation.

You, on the other hand are planning grand theft involving the siezure of property (of people who are not tyrants, have done nothing to you and owe you nothing).

Because there ownership of that property is, itself, an act of economic tryanny.

Look, your justifying capitalism from capitalism, and saying that because private property is a "right" under capitalsim, it's siezure must be the initiation of force.

Well, under monarchy, the King had a "right" to his colonies, thereby from the monarchic paradigm, the "fathers" were not retaliating, but rather "siezing" the kings "property".

It's all about perspective.

The point is that "rights" are societal. There is no "higher power" that determines them. Therefore, if the majority of the population belives that achieving communism is a desirable goal and that "private property" need no longer be protected, then there is no obligation to protect it. And, from a societal perspectice, any attempt to keep private property is the initiation of force!

That is, if society rejects private property, and you attempt to restrict me from using "your" property, you have initiated force against me because, societaly, your right of "ownership" no longer exists.

Violence is only needed in a revolutionary context if the capitalists refuse to accept it.

Professor Moneybags

30th July 2005, 17:15

Do you really not know what I'm going to say here?

sigh

Today, the workers are being dictated to by economic tyants who have no right to rule anyone.

Great equivocation there. Try again.

Because there ownership of that property is, itself, an act of economic tryanny.

You see the idea that I shouldn't be allowed just to walk into your house and take whatever I want as "economic tyranny" ?

That's a relief. For a second, I thought that this communism thing was nothing more than a bluerprint for grand theft...

Look, your justifying capitalism from capitalism, and saying that because private property is a "right" under capitalsim, it's siezure must be the initiation of force.

I'm arguing from the stand point of people owning themselves, their time being their own and what they wish to do with it being their own choice. Capitalism follows logically from that. Using, or threatening people with physical force in order to make them spend time supporting others negates this. This is what you are calling for- claming that no one has the right to call their time their own by allowing others to sieze the products they spent their time creating.

Well, under monarchy, the King had a "right" to his colonies,

No he didn't. His claim is as phoney as yours.

thereby from the monarchic paradigm, the "fathers" were not retaliating, but rather "siezing" the kings "property".

It's all about perspective.

Ah, subjectivism; the classic refuge of a failed debater. (But some subjective opinions are more equal than others, right ?)

The point is that "rights" are societal.

Why should it be "societal" ?

There is no "higher power" that determines them. Therefore, if the majority of the population belives that achieving communism is a desirable goal and that "private property" need no longer be protected, then there is no obligation to protect it.

Collorary : The majority of Germans believed nazism to be a good idea, therfore nazism was a good idea and murdering Jews is okay, because society thought that was good idea too.

Do you think that gang rape is okay ? (After all, that's the majority depriving the minority of rights it no longer sees as relevent.)

LSD

30th July 2005, 18:51

You see the idea that I shouldn't be allowed just to walk into your house and take whatever I want as "economic tyranny" ?

No.

I see the idea that I am forced to work for you or starve to be economic tyranny.

I'm arguing from the stand point of people owning themselves, their time being their own and what they wish to do with it being their own choice. Capitalism follows logically from that.

No it doesn't. First you have to add the

No he didn't. His claim is as phoney as yours.

How so?

The king "owned" the colonies. It was his armies that conquered it and it was claimed in his name. Therefore, by the same logic that says that you can own a golf course, the King could own North America.

It was his personal property. A revolution against that was an act of initiation of force against his property and "nothing more than a bluerprint for grand theft".

Ah, subjectivism; the classic refuge of a failed debater.

Not subjectivism, just pragmatism.

Just reminding you that "rights" don't come from "on high", we have to make them ourselves. If a right doesn't work out, we chuch it, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Why should it be "societal" ?

Rights?

Rights are societal because they are invented by society. There purpose is to maximize the bennefit of the members of that society so long as those rights do not harm others in society. That's the long-term goal, that's the reason that society exists. But the specific rights are always decided by society. I can disagree with specific rights, you can disagree with specific rights, but, in the end, it is always a societal decisions which rights are supported and which are not.

If a right can be objectively determined to not be in the best interest of a society or its members, then there is no reason that it cannot be dismissed. Such is the case with private property.

Collorary : The majority of Germans believed nazism to be a good idea, therfore nazism was a good idea and murdering Jews is okay, because society thought that was good idea too.

Ah, the Nazi comparison; the classic refuge of a failed debater.

Well, firstly, no they didn't, and secondly, clearly that was not a "good idead".

I never said that whats "good" was societal, just rights. Obviously, I disagree with the decisions made by the NSDAP, a significant proportion of the German population did as well. If I had had a vote, I would have voted against it. If I had had a gun, I woud have fought against it. But all of this is irrelevent!

Do you think that gang rape is okay ?

No. Because it can be objectively determined to be a bad thing.

...sort of like capitalism! :lol:

Paradox

30th July 2005, 18:59

Communism is a failed economic, social and political system. There are two main reasons that Communism or scientific socialism will NEVER work in the civilized world and why Marxism is inherently flawed and immoral.

1: Communism (Marxism) is inherently violent. Whereas Marx doesn't call for violence, his writings call for the worker to overthrow the state, and there is no possible way to do that without violence. Lenin, on the other hand, in his State and Revolution clearly calls for violence in the uprising.

2: Communism is inherently atheistic. In denying the existence of God, Marxism denies Man's basic and natural urge to know the divine. Any system of government which is atheistic is fundamentally flawed and will not last. History proves this.

If you are not religious, it still is a violence idelogy which inherently ends up with disasterous results. Don't believe me? Well, you're wrong. Yup, nothing anyone says can negate the truth I have said here. Marxism is inherently flawed, and will NEVER work as a viable system. Only in theory books.

1. This issue has already been clearly addressed by other members.

2. Already clearly addressed as well. And might I add, which god are you advocating here? Let me guess... Jesus? :P Everyone else can go to hell! Right? And how did everyone come to know of Jesus? Oh yes! Through violence and forced conversion! "You there! Quit your satanic pagan worshipping and bow down before the only true god, Jesus, or you shall be killed!"

So, if you are religious, then Communism is a totally flawed and illogical system.

:lol: This coming from people who flock to worship the "image" of Jesus or Mary appearing in the bark of a tree or a damn grilled cheese sandwich!