The Theory of Social Communism in Brief

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

Introduction

After reading and reading the Communist Manifesto, The Principles of Communism and many other works, I have come to conclusions that presently Communism as it is will never fit into my beliefs. even though 99% of the time me and fellow Orthodox communist will see eye to eye, there some example a fellow Orthodox Communist, by that a mean a Marxist, will just say "You are not a real Communist, you are just another fake Communist, You must follow what the Communist Manifesto and what karl Marx says 100% or you are not a real Communist. " but I disagree with that, I believe there is always a room for change by limiting ourselves to future forcomings predicted by Karl Marx, we are saying we will live under Capitalist operessions until the predicted measures come into being. With that said, here is the Communist Manifesto of a Social Communist.

Part 1

"Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat" wrote Frederick Engels in The Principles of Communism. Social Communism is nothing less than what that quote says. The ultimate liberation of all of the Proletrait and the new start of a nation based on the the needs of proletariat for the proletariat ruled by the proletariat.

Social Communism still holds firm the principle believes of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and all other theorist who wrote on behalf of Communism. Social Communism is against Capitalism and all Capital profits including the small industry and big Industry. Social Communism holds firm the idea of land ownership by the proletariat as a whole and against all individualistic ambitions to own private property.

Social Communism holds firm the abolition of Private Property, all Capitalistic ideals of which include the: Employee and Employer, Free Markets, and Labour force. Social Communism holds firm the ownership of Property by the proletariat as whole, Ownership of resources by the proletariat as whole, ownership of land by the proletariat as whole.

Social Communism holds firm the idea economics for the proletariat by the proletariat for the proletariat, These include local proletariat of any region owning business for the Local proletariat by the local proletariat. All proletariat Business shall profit the local proletariat and the governing proletariat. All proletariat Business are shall benifit the whole region and not only certain parts of the region.

Religion and Social Communism

Social Communism does not discourage any believe. all ideals are welcome to work with the ideals of Social Communism, thus Social Communism is open to all ideals. these stands to be a major divide between Social Communists and Marxists/Orthodox Communists.

Social Communist must hold dear that any religion is appropiate within the framework of Communism, thus Social Communism is open to religions.

Social Classes and Social Communism

Social Communism differs from Marxists/Orthodox Communism in a governing Hierarchy. In order for a civilazations to further itself, it must have a good governing Hierarchy, thus this is a direct cancelation of cancelation Marx's "No Social Classes of any kind"

Social Communism afirms that there should be No Social Classes within the proletariat. The proletariat should have no sense of Classes within the proletariat itself but must a firm the rights of the governing proletariat.

Social Communism Differs in Military Hierarchy from Orthodox Communism.
Social Communism holds firm the right for the Military to have a Hierarchy within it and only in it, thus Social Classes are eliminated within the Society that is not the Military.

Governing proletariat

What does it mean?

The governing proletariat is the leading proletrait in any given nation or goverment. The governing proletariat is a chosen few who are chosen for the dedication to help the proletrait and to advance the causes of that particular Proletrait. No elections are held to elect the, thus the Communist Party elects them.

What do they do?

These are the leaders of the nation, they are the people who run the daily rulings of the Communist party and so on. There sole job is the make life easier for the proletariat, to lead the Communist Party and so on.

Why are they different from the proletariat?

they are the leaders of the nation, thus they need a special role. They are not different, the laws effect them the same way as they will effect the whole proletrait. They are not different except they are the head of the Communist Party and shall be recognized as that, governing proletariat.

Conclusion

as we have seen from this brief, yet informative piece of document, Social Communism only differs on some matters and not everything in Marxist belief or Orthodox Communism. Those differences hold the basic tenets of Social Communism as they are the reason they are not orthodox Communism.

[enigma2517]

No elections are held to elect the, thus the Communist Party elects them.


all believes and religions are welcome to work with the ideals of Social Communism

Two pretty bad ideas right there.

I think the word "ideals" is pretty appropriate.

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

This is just basic tenets of my belief... I tryied to write them down so other people can clearly know my point and where I come from.

I will continue to write about each topic and will write soon about my first topic:
The proletariat in Social Communism

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:43 AM

No elections are held to elect the, thus the Communist Party elects them.


all believes and religions are welcome to work with the ideals of Social Communism

Two pretty bad ideas right there.

I think the word "ideals" is pretty appropriate.
Right.... bad wording... Thanks!!!

EDIT: Changed!

[Amusing Scrotum]

I have come to conclusions that presently Communism as it is will never fit into my beliefs. even though 99% of the time me and fellow Orthodox communist will see eye to eye, there some example a fellow Orthodox Communist, by that a mean a Marxist, will just say "You are not a real Communist, you are just another fake Communist, You must follow what the Communist Manifesto and what karl Marx says 100% or you are not a real Communist."

Please don't compare Marxism and Marx to theology. I know it must be tempting for a "believer" such as yourself to think of it this way. However us "unbelievers" tend to view Marxism as a science, which tries to explain history. We use the tools Marx gave us to try to better understand the world and apply basic Marxist theory to todays world. We don't just believe what some man said 150 years ago, because we are not believers. We are analysts.


Social Communism does not discourage any believe. all believes and religions are welcome to work with the ideals of Social Communism, thus Social Communism is open to Social Communism. For this reason. these stands to be a major divide between Social Communists and Marxists/Orthodox Communists.

Therefore "Social Communism" is like "Social-Democracy," reformist crap.


Social Communist must hold dear that any religion is appropiate within the framework of Communism, thus Social Communism is open to communism.

Communism is not a religion. We don't believe in some "deity in the sky." We Communists analyse the world through a Marxist perspective and draw scientific conclusions based on evidence, not belief.


Social Communism differs from Marxists/Orthodox Communism in a governing Hierarchy. In order for a civilazations to further itself, it must have a good governing Hierarchy, thus this is a direct cancelation of cancelation Marx's "No Social Classes of any kind"

So "Social Communism" is not Communism at all, because it wishes to create a society with classes. Communism is classless and therefore your idea is a absurd and a complete contradiction in terms.

You are not proposing Communism.


Social Communism afirms that there should be No Social Classes within the proletariat. The proletariat should have no sense of Classes within the proletariat itself but must a firm the rights of the governing proletariat

So the "governing proletariat" becomes the ruling class and this will mean there are no longer any classes within the proletariat. True, but there have never been any classes within the proletariat, the proletariat is a class.


Social Communism Differs in Military Hierarchy from Orthodox Communism.
Social Communism holds firm the right for the Military to have a Hierarchy within it and only in it, thus Social Classes are eliminated within the Society that is not the Military.

Classes are eliminated in society. You just said there would be a ruling class, the "governing proletariat."


The governing proletariat is the leading proletrait in any given nation or goverment. The governing proletariat is a chosen few who are chosen for the dedication to help the proletrait and to advance the causes of that particular Proletrait. No elections are held to elect the, thus the Communist Party elects them.

You'd enjoy Lenin, have you been reading him?


These are the leaders of the nation, they are the people who run the daily rulings of the Communist party and so on. There sole job is the make life easier for the proletariat, to lead the Communist Party and so on.

So we are going to rely on the kindness of unelected dictators? .....what is this feudalism with a new lick of paint?


they are the leaders of the nation, thus they need a special role. They are not different, the laws effect them the same way as they will effect the whole proletrait. They are not different except they are the head of the Communist Party and shall be recognized as that, governing proletariat.

So they are an unelected ruling class? .....in other words you are proposing a dictatorship.


as we have seen from this brief, yet informative piece of document, Social Communism only differs on some matters and not everything in Marxist belief or Orthodox Communism. Those differences hold the basic tenets of Social Communism as they are the reason they are not orthodox Communism.

Social Communism "differs on some matters?" Its completely different to Communism and to even call it "Social Communism" is ludicrous.

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

Beyond difference in "allowing religion" to play part and allowing a some form of regulated Hierarchy which is controlled by the Proletrait and is governed by members of the proletrait, what other absurd and beyond belief differences.

You are Comparing Communism as Karl Marx saw it to Social Commuinism as I see it, thus you are making you judgments from an orginal to a reform version of it. I comepletely believe in Social Communism and that is why I always argue for the inclusion of religion. now lets get down to Business:


Please don't compare Marxism and Marx to theology. I know it must be tempting for a "believer" such as yourself to think of it this way. However us "unbelievers" tend to view Marxism as a science, which tries to explain history. We use the tools Marx gave us to try to better understand the world and apply basic Marxist theory to todays world. We don't just believe what some man said 150 years ago, because we are not believers. We are analysts.

The Science is there, and the Ideology is there, you can sepearte the two things, I did not say believe, you added that word from some other comments I made somewhere else. the Communist Ideology is a ideal that Communists hold dear, but Karl Marx work on the Prletrait and the Capitalist are that. He used dialects and sorts like that, so he used science to Prove his Ideology. I never disagreed with that, you infered that I said believe, which I did not say at all and if I said was mis-use of the word.


Therefore "Social Communism" is like "Social-Democracy," reformist crap.

Wrong my friend, Social Democracy are people who want to work "with the Capitalists" I am against the Capitalist and thus I am completely different from the Capitalist's world. I can tell you are against reformist, well I am one, using all of an Ideology that has been developed 100 years ago will not suit today's society.


Communism is not a religion. We don't believe in some "deity in the sky." We Communists analyse the world through a Marxist perspective and draw scientific conclusions based on evidence, not belief.

I did not say \"Communism is a religion"\..... so you wasted a bit if your time writing this!


So "Social Communism" is not Communism at all, because it wishes to create a society with classes. Communism is classless and therefore your idea is a absurd and a complete contradiction in terms.

You are not proposing Communism.


He is another one of those "No reformist Crap!" that Orthodox Communists in Revleft says alot. Just because you are different from this point and this point, you are not a Communist. By holding dear 99% of Karl Marx's Communism makes me a Communist. Communism is Classless, thus Social Communism is Classless, the only 'Proletrait' Classes in Social Communism are the Governing Proletrait and the allowance of a Hierarchy within the Military.


So the "governing proletariat" becomes the ruling class and this will mean there are no longer any classes within the proletariat. True, but there have never been any classes within the proletariat, the proletariat is a class.

Wrong, the governing Proletrait are choosen by the Communist Party, The Governing Proletrait is not a class of its own, in fact its not a class at all. The Governing Proletrait are elected by the party in order to serve the Proletrait. The Governing Proletrait, by becoming servants of the Proletrait as whole are eliminated as threat to the Proletrait because they serve the Proletrait, I should add that they replaceable and hold no 'different' characterstics.


Classes are eliminated in society. You just said there would be a ruling class, the "governing proletariat."

That portion you read only dealt with the Military, the Military would have Generals, Commanders and So on, so they are not of their own "Class" but rather Hierarchy. If there is not a Social Class within the military, like a wealthy man taking up a post of Genrals without any credentials, then there are no classes within the Military.


You'd enjoy Lenin, have you been reading him?

I have to Finish reading about Che' first, I would love to read him... I just finished reading works of Karl Marx and Engels... I will get to him and Trotsky. You should read my Blog to see what I mean. The latest post talks about my re-education plan... http://Imview.blogspot.com


we are going to rely on the kindness of unelected dictators? .....what is this feudalism with a new lick of paint?

there is an element of a dictator in Social Communism but it does not come here, The Party individuals like the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. these are people chosen by the Party to head up posts like that, they are also people who head big jobs within the nation, like a govornor of a large region with a nation.

A leader of the nation is chosen by the Party, as done by China today, and has his post for life, this eliminates the need for a leader every four years. the leader, however is subject to the Party, thus if he gets out of controlled, he is eliminated by the party and is replaced. This will help the nation in several ways:

1: There will be no new leader every 4 years or 5 years or so on of any sort.
2: The Leader of the Nation... The President, will not do his work to impress the voters or anyone for that matter, with that judgement in mind, that leader will do a better work for the nation because he is not afraid of an elections nor is he subject to one.


So they are an unelected ruling class? .....in other words you are proposing a dictatorship.

I have no idea where you got that, you properly pumped yourself full of other ideas... tell me where you got that if not I have not explained before.


Social Communism "differs on some matters?" Its completely different to Communism and to even call it "Social Communism" is ludicrous.

Social Communism is Communism. You cannot say this is not Communism if most of the Basic tenets of Communism are not changed. We are Against Capitalism and any sort of, we are against Private Proporty, but for Proletrait Property... So besides our idealogy in Religion and Military Hierarchy.... Where is the other HUGE differences you seem to point. The turth is there is NONE

[JKP]

Communism has no state.

What you are arguing for is similar to Lenin's vangaurd. And that's called socialism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The Science is there, and the Ideology is there, you can sepearte the two things, I did not say believe, you added that word from some other comments I made somewhere else. the Communist Ideology is a ideal that Communists hold dear, but Karl Marx work on the Prletrait and the Capitalist are that. He used dialects and sorts like that, so he used science to Prove his Ideology. I never disagreed with that, you infered that I said believe, which I did not say at all and if I said was mis-use of the word.

You said -


I have come to conclusions that presently Communism as it is will never fit into my beliefs. even though 99% of the time me and fellow Orthodox communist will see eye to eye, there some example a fellow Orthodox Communist, by that a mean a Marxist, will just say "You are not a real Communist, you are just another fake Communist, You must follow what the Communist Manifesto and what karl Marx says 100% or you are not a real Communist."

(Emphasis added.)

By doing this you are degrading Marx's work to that of a religious text that we follow to the word. It's not.


Wrong my friend, Social Democracy are people who want to work "with the Capitalists" I am against the Capitalist and thus I am completely different from the Capitalist's world. I can tell you are against reformist, well I am one, using all of an Ideology that has been developed 100 years ago will not suit today's society.

You are missing the point of Marx's works, they are not scripture. They are scientific studies using scientific tools, namely historical materialism. Therefore it is not a case of them not "suiting todays society," this is irrelevant, it is a case of using the tools Marx gave us to analyse and study the world we live in.


I did not say \"Communism is a religion"\..... so you wasted a bit if your time writing this!

You refer to Marx's work as if it is scripture and therefore you are bringing down to the same level as religion.


He is another one of those "No reformist Crap!" that Orthodox Communists in Revleft says alot. Just because you are different from this point and this point, you are not a Communist. By holding dear 99% of Karl Marx's Communism makes me a Communist. Communism is Classless, thus Social Communism is Classless, the only 'Proletrait' Classes in Social Communism are the Governing Proletrait and the allowance of a Hierarchy within the Military.


You see your ideas are not 99% similar to the ideas of Marx. You advocate a hierarchy which totally contradicts Communism. A hierarchy is a form of class and Communism is classless, therefore "Social Communism" advocates Communism with classes, which is not Communism at all.


Wrong, the governing Proletrait are choosen by the Communist Party, The Governing Proletrait is not a class of its own, in fact its not a class at all. The Governing Proletrait are elected by the party in order to serve the Proletrait. The Governing Proletrait, by becoming servants of the Proletrait as whole are eliminated as threat to the Proletrait because they serve the Proletrait, I should add that they replaceable and hold no 'different' characterstics.

For a start they have a different material perspective from the proletariat, which means they are no longer part of the proletariat.

As for your other ideas, well hade to tell you but this is traditional Leninism with religion tacked on. Instead of calling yourself a "Social Communist," you may as well just refer to yourself as a Leninist, or a religious Leninist.


That portion you read only dealt with the Military, the Military would have Generals, Commanders and So on, so they are not of their own "Class" but rather Hierarchy. If there is not a Social Class within the military, like a wealthy man taking up a post of Genrals without any credentials, then there are no classes within the Military.

A hierarchy is practically the same as a class. Therefore both the military and the Party will become a class, the ruling class, because there will be a group of people higher than the proletariat.


I have to Finish reading about Che' first, I would love to read him... I just finished reading works of Karl Marx and Engels... I will get to him and Trotsky. You should read my Blog to see what I mean. The latest post talks about my re-education plan... http://Imview.blogspot.com

I've glanced through some of your blog, if you wish to discuss your ideas just bring them up in the appropriate forum. I would happily engage in the debate.

As for your reading list, you should try Lenin, you'd enjoy him. Theres a sticky somewhere which links his works for free over the internet.


there is an element of a dictator in Social Communism but it does not come here, The Party individuals like the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. these are people chosen by the Party to head up posts like that, they are also people who head big jobs within the nation, like a govornor of a large region with a nation.

A leader of the nation is chosen by the Party, as done by China today, and has his post for life, this eliminates the need for a leader every four years. the leader, however is subject to the Party, thus if he gets out of controlled, he is eliminated by the party and is replaced. This will help the nation in several ways:

1: There will be no new leader every 4 years or 5 years or so on of any sort.
2: The Leader of the Nation... The President, will not do his work to impress the voters or anyone for that matter, with that judgement in mind, that leader will do a better work for the nation because he is not afraid of an elections nor is he subject to one.


Present day China is a Capitalist shithole. You would be wise to avoid their system.

As for you proposing a dictatorship, well thats obvious. You are proposing a leader who will not have to be elected by the public and who will therefore be able to dictate policy.


Dictator

1.
a. An absolute ruler.
b. A tyrant; a despot.
2. An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
3. One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dictator)


Dictatorship

1. The office or tenure of a dictator.
2. A state or government under dictatorial rule.
3. Absolute or despotic control or power.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dictatorship)

You see, you are proposing a dictatorship.


I have no idea where you got that, you properly pumped yourself full of other ideas... tell me where you got that if not I have not explained before.

See above, you are proposing a dictatorship.


Social Communism is Communism. You cannot say this is not Communism if most of the Basic tenets of Communism are not changed. We are Against Capitalism and any sort of, we are against Private Proporty, but for Proletrait Property... So besides our idealogy in Religion and Military Hierarchy.... Where is the other HUGE differences you seem to point. The turth is there is NONE

"Social Communism" advocates a hierarchy of both party and military (classes) and a dictatorship.

Communism advocates a classless society and ultimate democracy.

They seem like pretty big differences to me.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I don't understand you're theory.

Is religion in social-communism private, and seperate from the government?

By having a party above the prolitariat, that isn't accountable you are advocating a social-dictatorship.

The whole idea of communist party, is that it operates during the pre-revolutionary till revolutionary period to rally around, organize and mobilize the prolitariat. Its supposed to cease to exist after the counter-revolution.

As for military hierachy, lowering ranks are to take up some bureacratic duties that officers would take up, and generals are accountable and voted for,they just have the best ideas, and thats all. Its the same as work-place democracy.

By having the military and party, above the prolitariat you now have a class above everyone. In this sense your having the special bodies of armed men protecting the rulers of state (the party) from the prolitariat. So your advocating a welfare-state or state-capitalism.

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

Emphasis added.)

By doing this you are degrading Marx's work to that of a religious text that we follow to the word. It's not.

I was refering to Marx's Ideology. Not his scientific reasoning, which we will know is proveable and is at the point.


You are missing the point of Marx's works, they are not scripture. They are scientific studies using scientific tools, namely historical materialism. Therefore it is not a case of them not "suiting todays society," this is irrelevant, it is a case of using the tools Marx gave us to analyse and study the world we live in.

refer to the above answer, we are not directing our comments at his scientific reasoning, we are talking about his Ideology.


You see your ideas are not 99% similar to the ideas of Marx. You advocate a hierarchy which totally contradicts Communism. A hierarchy is a form of class and Communism is classless, therefore "Social Communism" advocates Communism with classes, which is not Communism at all.

I would like to emphasis these comment on the bolden areas.

1: I am not advocating a Dictatorial Facists like Idea, the hierarchy only exists in the Military and not the actual society. In order to protect the people from the evils of Capitalism, there have to be a way for the Military to exists and to exist meaningfully until the point where there will be no need for it. Communism and Social Communism defer on this Idea for two things and they are as follow:
______________ A: Othordoxy Communism states that there should be no hierarchy whatsoever
______________ B: Social Communism advocates a limited hierarchy in the Military and to some extent the leadership of the party.

2: Communism with Classes is not what we advocate, Social Communism states that the Proletrait is the base of the all ruling. they are the word of the Communist party and they have a direct choosing, not election, but choosing of the leader by means of of the Party itself. You are totally confused about the governing Proletrait and about our stance in Classless society... here is some are some distinctions I would like to make:
______________ A: The governing preletrait are people who lead the day to day affairs of the Proletrait, such as the person who has governance of the economy or as we know as the :Minister of Economy: or the Foreign Affairs Minister in which the Proletrait has direct choosing of by means of the Party itself
______________ B: Social Communism has a firm stance in a classless society, here are some ideas.
______________ a: Social Communism for example, welcome all ideals, including religious believes, the theory itself is not advocating religion but rather has no stance on it... that is why I have written "all ideals". when it comes to the theory of Social Communism it is neutral on the means of the Religion.
______________ b: Social Communism discourages the populace to distinct itself between ethnicity, the proletrait are in fact a class in itself as you mentioned before, and there are no other classes. Everything from the Party to the leader are choosen directly by means of the party, thus giving the proletrait a direct choosing of their party and hence all decisions thereafter are of the proletrait since the proletrait is the party.

if you give me more time, I will show you how this is possible when I write my article/book or whatever you want to call it about the Proletrait and the Party and the Proletrait and Social Communism.


For a start they have a different material perspective from the proletariat, which means they are no longer part of the proletariat.

As for your other ideas, well hade to tell you but this is traditional Leninism with religion tacked on. Instead of calling yourself a "Social Communist," you may as well just refer to yourself as a Leninist, or a religious Leninist.

Wrong! since the Party is from the Proletrait and for the most essence the Proletrait is the party or the base of the Party, then there will be no difference in what the Proletrait wants and the Party is doing.

Social Communism is not leninist since we are more different leninsm and are almost base to base with Othordox Communism. you may say..... "NO! Completely wrong!" but here is why. Social Communism has no one on top with being choosen. sometime ago I refered to as a Dictator or a leader or what ever you want to call as being choosen for life somewhat like the Chinese choose there leader in the party....as in the party chooses the leader, but our distinction end there, you added some other bull crap that I forced myself to read. here is why I meant.

The Leader is choosen for life, to completely diffuse his intrests in staying in power so he can effectively work for the people, thus the leader is not a dictatot since he is choosen by the party for the proletrait and since the party is base or the Porletrait, then you can say that the Leader is chosen by the Proletrait. The leader is only the leader for the good of the proletrait and that is why he is the leader/ the head of the party and the proletrait. all laws apply to him that applies to the proletrait and since he is from the proletrait, you can't just say that he is a leader for life without any laws applying to him or he is a leader that is not choosen, you have to wait until I talk about this deeply for you to make judgement, I am guessing you are just rushing to judgement here.


A hierarchy is practically the same as a class. Therefore both the military and the Party will become a class, the ruling class, because there will be a group of people higher than the proletariat.

wrong my friend, a hierarchy is that and is not almost a class because its limited, you can't call one person a hierarchy or even a group of people who are less than let's say 100 a class. its just not possiple.

The Military is isloated from Society, the Military is the military and to have a military with nothing...at least at the start... or the initial phase of the creation of the state and the start of eliminating any evils that lurk within the state, then you have a recipe for a complete disaster. you can belief whatever you want to believe but this will not change.

As for you comment about the military and the Party as the ruling class, this is impossible as we have said before. the Party is the base of the Proletrait thereby the Proletrait itself.


Communism advocates a classless society and ultimate democracy.

Same here!!!! :)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

EL KABLAMO


As for military hierachy, lowering ranks are to take up some bureacratic duties that officers would take up, and generals are accountable and voted for,they just have the best ideas, and thats all. Its the same as work-place democracy.

You right, and since I have not talked about the Military in Social Communism yet, you have no judgement in how the military or anything beside that works... there is a reason why the title of this thread is the Theory of Social Communism in Brief



By having the military and party, above the prolitariat you now have a class above everyone. In this sense your having the special bodies of armed men protecting the rulers of state (the party) from the prolitariat. So your advocating a welfare-state or state-capitalism.

The armed forces or the Military will have nothing to do with Internal affairs, their sole duty is to protect the people or the proletrait and I will make sure that is accounted in the theory of Social Communism. as to your other point, read throught these post to get you answer.

to you last point, no, we are not advocating Statte Capitalism... when you think of Social Communism, Capitalism in anyway should be the the farthest in you thinking.

[anomaly]

I do support your idea for religious libertarianism, that is, letting people worship freely. Sadly most communists believe that communism will only come once religion dissapears. And, therefore, communism will never come because religion will never disappear.

Now let me drop my complimenting tone. The rest of your 'theory' sounds frighteningly like Leninism to me. Other comrades have noticed this as well. Leninism is an utter failure.

It's equally frightening how you support the existence of a dictatorship, another point Armchair Socialism made.

But most disgusting to me is your insistence that your class society will be communist, even though communism is, by definition, classless. Your's is Leninist doctrine. In your system, all would be equal, but some would be more equal than others, as Orwell once said.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

if you give me more time, I will show you how this is possible when I write my article/book or whatever you want to call it about the Proletrait and the Party and the Proletrait and Social Communism.

When the book will you spell proletariat right?


Sadly most communists believe that communism will only come once religion dissapears.

Actually, all communists know so. If someone thinks otherwise, they are not a communist.


And, therefore, communism will never come because religion will never disappear.

What an unscientific view. You understand that being determines conciousness right?

[Scars]

<<When the book will you spell proletariat right?>>

I don&#39;t want to get involved in this debate, however nit picking over peoples spelling is generally a sign of a lack of any intelligent argument and is petty in a more general sense. I do not spell well and I do not speak particularly well either and there are many, many people like me. However spelling does not discredit peoples ideas.

Plus French is a silly language.

(Actually I like the French, it&#39;s more than silent letters annoy the piss out of me)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It probably is petty in a "general sense". But I would hope that someone attempting to formulate a new political theory [or combination of others wrapped up in a new package] would correctly spell a word as important as proletariat.

But your right, spelling does not discredit ideas - the author has done that by other means.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I was refering to Marx&#39;s Ideology. Not his scientific reasoning, which we will know is proveable and is at the point.

His ideology (theory is more appropriate) is based on his scientific study. Thats what made Marx distinctly different from the romantic Socialists of his era, he was not an idealist.

As for his theory being "provable." Well if you are saying Marx has been proved, your dead wrong on this count. The evidence thus far suggests he was right, but objective proof of whether Marx was right or not, will not appear until Communism "comes." If theres no Communism anywhere by about 2250/2300 we will probably be able to say Marx was wrong, until then he will remain un-proveable.


refer to the above answer, we are not directing our comments at his scientific reasoning, we are talking about his Ideology.

Define what parts of Marx&#39;s work are scientific and which parts are ideological.


1: I am not advocating a Dictatorial Facists like Idea, the hierarchy only exists in the Military and not the actual society. In order to protect the people from the evils of Capitalism, there have to be a way for the Military to exists and to exist meaningfully until the point where there will be no need for it. Communism and Social Communism defer on this Idea for two things and they are as follow:

You said -


1: There will be no new leader every 4 years or 5 years or so on of any sort.
2: The Leader of the Nation... The President, will not do his work to impress the voters or anyone for that matter, with that judgement in mind, that leader will do a better work for the nation because he is not afraid of an elections nor is he subject to one.

The leader is not elected, he will not have to "impress" the people and he will not fear being removed. This is the definition of a dictator. Actually its not just the definition of a dictator, it sounds like the definition of a particularly tyrannical dictator.


______________ A: Othordoxy Communism states that there should be no hierarchy whatsoever
______________ B: Social Communism advocates a limited hierarchy in the Military and to some extent the leadership of the party.

"Limited Hierarchy?"

Us Communists want no hierarchy. There is nothing orthodox about us. We simply want an egalitarian society, you don&#39;t want this and are therefore not a Communist, whether you tack the word "social" on or not.


2: Communism with Classes is not what we advocate, Social Communism states that the Proletrait is the base of the all ruling. they are the word of the Communist party and they have a direct choosing, not election, but choosing of the leader by means of of the Party itself. You are totally confused about the governing Proletrait and about our stance in Classless society... here is some are some distinctions I would like to make:

You seem to not realise that if you have a governing proletariat which is not even elected, you are creating a ruling class. This ruling class is then divorced from the proletariat and material reality dictates that it will become a new class, the ruling class.

Your idea was tried in Russia and all the other "Socialist" countries in the last century. Guess what? .....it failed miserably.


______________ A: The governing preletrait are people who lead the day to day affairs of the Proletrait, such as the person who has governance of the economy or as we know as the :Minister of Economy: or the Foreign Affairs Minister in which the Proletrait has direct choosing of by means of the Party itself


Will these people be directly elected or not. You don&#39;t seem to make this clear in this post.

Also we already have this system, its called a liberal or Parliamentary democracy and its not anything special and is certainly not what any Communist would propose.


______________ B: Social Communism has a firm stance in a classless society, here are some ideas.

Yeah its firm stance is that there will be two classes, a ruling class and a proletariat.


______________ a: Social Communism for example, welcome all ideals, including religious believes, the theory itself is not advocating religion but rather has no stance on it... that is why I have written "all ideals". when it comes to the theory of Social Communism it is neutral on the means of the Religion.

So when you say "Social Communism" will welcome "all ideals." Does this mean that "Social Communism" will welcome racism, sexism or homophobia?


______________ b: Social Communism discourages the populace to distinct itself between ethnicity, the proletrait are in fact a class in itself as you mentioned before, and there are no other classes. Everything from the Party to the leader are choosen directly by means of the party, thus giving the proletrait a direct choosing of their party and hence all decisions thereafter are of the proletrait since the proletrait is the party.

So are you now saying the proletariat will elect people into the party, the bottom of the party will then elect the ministers and the ministers will then elect the leader?

Like I said this idea is traditional Leninism and it failed on countless occasions during the last century.


if you give me more time, I will show you how this is possible when I write my article/book or whatever you want to call it about the Proletrait and the Party and the Proletrait and Social Communism.

Well I&#39;m all ears. :)


Wrong&#33; since the Party is from the Proletrait and for the most essence the Proletrait is the party or the base of the Party, then there will be no difference in what the Proletrait wants and the Party is doing.

Do you not understand the idea of someones material perspective changing. If you put someone from the proletariat into the party, gradually they change their class perspective and no longer are part of the proletariat, they become the ruling class.

It is possible for someone from the proletariat to change their class.


Social Communism is not leninist since we are more different leninsm and are almost base to base with Othordox Communism. you may say..... "NO&#33; Completely wrong&#33;" but here is why. Social Communism has no one on top with being choosen. sometime ago I refered to as a Dictator or a leader or what ever you want to call as being choosen for life somewhat like the Chinese choose there leader in the party....as in the party chooses the leader, but our distinction end there, you added some other bull crap that I forced myself to read. here is why I meant.

Trust me what you are proposing is Leninism with a "new lick of paint."


The Leader is choosen for life, to completely diffuse his intrests in staying in power so he can effectively work for the people, thus the leader is not a dictatot since he is choosen by the party for the proletrait and since the party is base or the Porletrait, then you can say that the Leader is chosen by the Proletrait. The leader is only the leader for the good of the proletrait and that is why he is the leader/ the head of the party and the proletrait. all laws apply to him that applies to the proletrait and since he is from the proletrait, you can&#39;t just say that he is a leader for life without any laws applying to him or he is a leader that is not choosen, you have to wait until I talk about this deeply for you to make judgement, I am guessing you are just rushing to judgement here.

The leader will change his material perspective once he becomes the leader. This means that he will no longer think like a "prole" and will therefore no longer do things in the interest of the proletariat.

What you are proposing is a dictatorship which is actually worse than what we have now. At least now we can kick our leader out every four years and choose a new bastard. You propose that we will have to endure the same bastard until he dies. This is a dictatorship.


wrong my friend, a hierarchy is that and is not almost a class because its limited, you can&#39;t call one person a hierarchy or even a group of people who are less than let&#39;s say 100 a class. its just not possiple.

What was Feudalism? .....it was the social order where there was a very small ruling class, in some cases smaller than 100 people and they were a class. So it is possible and it does happen.


The Military is isloated from Society, the Military is the military and to have a military with nothing...at least at the start... or the initial phase of the creation of the state and the start of eliminating any evils that lurk within the state, then you have a recipe for a complete disaster. you can belief whatever you want to believe but this will not change.

This sounds so much like the Leninist rhetoric I oppose. Local militias will do a good enough job of "eliminating any evils that lurk."


As for you comment about the military and the Party as the ruling class, this is impossible as we have said before. the Party is the base of the Proletrait thereby the Proletrait itself.

Material reality dictates that if there is a hierarchy, after a while this hierarchy will become a whole new class, the ruling class. It doesn&#39;t matter whether they were from the proletariat or not, once they have power and authority they will no longer act on the proletariats behalf.


Same here&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

No what you advocate is not even similar. I advocate a classless society which is incredibly democratic. You advocate a society with two classes (the ruling class and the proletariat) and no democracy (a dictatorship). Theres nothing even remotely similar about what we advocate.

[More Fire for the People]

So in short, social-communism is simply post-materialist communism?

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

My Response The Flaws of Social Communism

"No man is an island" is a word most people use to describe when the begin to open to other worlds. First, I must confess that I am not well used to arguing, or I have not been on any other leftist site, even though without a shadow of thought, I believed communism was right path for me and I believed that everything Socialism or anyway Socialistic was better than today world.

I have studied into Social Communism, I have tried to write few articles about the theory, and how it can be an improvement for me, but the more and more I thought about Social Communism, the more I got closer to laughing about it, Its a tarnish on my record on revleft and I am more than embarrased to even mention it in puplic anymore ( used to talk about Social Communism with friends of mine). I wish I could have taken more time to read books like "Engel&#39;s Historical Matrealism" . To think about Communism and Social Communism is like thinking about the difference between Facism and Communism, its like an Apple compared to an Orange, a drastical difference.

Social Communism as per word itself felt so much a reduntant word, I should have not used the word Communism, its more than abovious that it is not even close to the Communist nature. Dictatorship... and having even Some Classes other than the people as whole is rediculious and should not been labeled Communist. To come back to the word itself, when saying it, I feel so reduntant that it may me thinking about saying things like Social Socialism or Social Socialist, it obvious that Communist is the most Social of any philosophy. Number 1) I want to apologise for even creating this thread without even thinking about it and giving at least a week or 2 weeks of thinking and number 2) I am not as dumb or even close to as this thread suggests.

I have also, after few hours of convincing myself, have culminationally come to the point that I will no longer consider myself a COMMUNIST nor anything else for that matter until I understand and read without any doubt where I belong in the left in depth by reading books on "Socialism", "Communism", and "The Nature of Communism". I will however, report my progress and where I belong in the left as soon as I finish reading those book (Which I will buy soon, today or tomorrow).

Additionally, can&#39;t help but feel sorry for myself. :ph34r:

Abdul-Jabar Mohamed
Blog.Blog.Blog (http://Imview.blogspot.com)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:51 AM

if you give me more time, I will show you how this is possible when I write my article/book or whatever you want to call it about the Proletrait and the Party and the Proletrait and Social Communism.

When the book will you spell proletariat right?


Sadly most communists believe that communism will only come once religion dissapears.

Actually, all communists know so. If someone thinks otherwise, they are not a communist.


And, therefore, communism will never come because religion will never disappear.

What an unscientific view. You understand that being determines conciousness right?
And if companero de libertad says it, it must be true.

You orthodox fool. Go ahead dreaming that religion will disappear, it will not. In fact, new scientific research indicates that the human brain is &#39;hard wired&#39; for belief, and that belief in God, in something beyond this life, is an accident do to brain chemicals. Whether one takes this as evidence of God or vis-sersa is irrelevant. The point is, we are naturally going to believe. I suggest you stop this little fantasy if you want to make any serious progress.

Now, organized religion may very well need to disappear (I think so, anyway), but you simply cannot stop people from believing. And if communists suppress religious freedom, we will never be able to recruit a majority of the population. You know, Freud predicted, nearly 100 years ago, that people would soon begin to &#39;wake up&#39;, begin to use &#39;logic rather than faith&#39;. He was wrong, and you will see that you will be wrong as well. This is not a matter of faith, before you begin you ranting, it is a matter of logic, using historical evidence.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I have studied into Social Communism, I have tried to write few articles about the theory, and how it can be an improvement for me, but the more and more I thought about Social Communism, the more I got closer to laughing about it, Its a tarnish on my record on revleft and I am more than embarrased to even mention it in puplic anymore

No worries comrade, we were all new here at some point and most of us held some daft views. However the nature of this board is to educate people and I think everyone learns something in their time here.

Therefore don&#39;t feel embarrassed, we all learn new things and learning is certainly not something which someone should feel embarrassed about.


Number 1) I want to apologise for even creating this thread without even thinking about it and giving at least a week or 2 weeks of thinking

You don&#39;t need to apologise for starting a thread and debating a topic. Its what this board is all about. :)


I have also, after few hours of convincing myself, have culminationally come to the point that I will no longer consider myself a COMMUNIST nor anything else for that matter until I understand and read without any doubt where I belong in the left in depth by reading books on "Socialism", "Communism", and "The Nature of Communism". I will however, report my progress and where I belong in the left as soon as I finish reading those book (Which I will buy soon, today or tomorrow).

I think you should still call yourself a Communist, because you seem to be at least a Communist "sympathiser." And you like everyone else here is still a Communist who is learning, none of us are "perfect" Communists and therefore none of us are anything but Communists "in training."

Also, you&#39;ll find a lot of good Communist literature linked in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=5983) and therefore you don&#39;t need to spend money buying the books.


Additionally, can&#39;t help but feel sorry for myself.

Don&#39;t feel sorry for yourself, feel proud. You&#39;ve actually learnt something knew and important.

Also don&#39;t feel embarrassed about making threads in the future, its what this board is all about. We discuss Communism and everything about it.

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:37 AM
Introduction

After reading and reading the Communist Manifesto, The Principles of Communism and many other works, I have come to conclusions that presently Communism as it is will never fit into my beliefs. even though 99% of the time me and fellow Orthodox communist will see eye to eye, there some example a fellow Orthodox Communist, by that a mean a Marxist, will just say "You are not a real Communist, you are just another fake Communist, You must follow what the Communist Manifesto and what karl Marx says 100% or you are not a real Communist. " but I disagree with that, I believe there is always a room for change by limiting ourselves to future forcomings predicted by Karl Marx, we are saying we will live under Capitalist operessions until the predicted measures come into being. With that said, here is the Communist Manifesto of a Social Communist.

Part 1

"Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat" wrote Frederick Engels in The Principles of Communism. Social Communism is nothing less than what that quote says. The ultimate liberation of all of the Proletrait and the new start of a nation based on the the needs of proletariat for the proletariat ruled by the proletariat.

Social Communism still holds firm the principle believes of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and all other theorist who wrote on behalf of Communism. Social Communism is against Capitalism and all Capital profits including the small industry and big Industry. Social Communism holds firm the idea of land ownership by the proletariat as a whole and against all individualistic ambitions to own private property.

Social Communism holds firm the abolition of Private Property, all Capitalistic ideals of which include the: Employee and Employer, Free Markets, and Labour force. Social Communism holds firm the ownership of Property by the proletariat as whole, Ownership of resources by the proletariat as whole, ownership of land by the proletariat as whole.

Social Communism holds firm the idea economics for the proletariat by the proletariat for the proletariat, These include local proletariat of any region owning business for the Local proletariat by the local proletariat. All proletariat Business shall profit the local proletariat and the governing proletariat. All proletariat Business are shall benifit the whole region and not only certain parts of the region.

Religion and Social Communism

Social Communism does not discourage any believe. all ideals are welcome to work with the ideals of Social Communism, thus Social Communism is open to all ideals. these stands to be a major divide between Social Communists and Marxists/Orthodox Communists.

Social Communist must hold dear that any religion is appropiate within the framework of Communism, thus Social Communism is open to religions.

Social Classes and Social Communism

Social Communism differs from Marxists/Orthodox Communism in a governing Hierarchy. In order for a civilazations to further itself, it must have a good governing Hierarchy, thus this is a direct cancelation of cancelation Marx&#39;s "No Social Classes of any kind"

Social Communism afirms that there should be No Social Classes within the proletariat. The proletariat should have no sense of Classes within the proletariat itself but must a firm the rights of the governing proletariat.

Social Communism Differs in Military Hierarchy from Orthodox Communism.
Social Communism holds firm the right for the Military to have a Hierarchy within it and only in it, thus Social Classes are eliminated within the Society that is not the Military.

Governing proletariat

What does it mean?

The governing proletariat is the leading proletrait in any given nation or goverment. The governing proletariat is a chosen few who are chosen for the dedication to help the proletrait and to advance the causes of that particular Proletrait. No elections are held to elect the, thus the Communist Party elects them.

What do they do?

These are the leaders of the nation, they are the people who run the daily rulings of the Communist party and so on. There sole job is the make life easier for the proletariat, to lead the Communist Party and so on.

Why are they different from the proletariat?

they are the leaders of the nation, thus they need a special role. They are not different, the laws effect them the same way as they will effect the whole proletrait. They are not different except they are the head of the Communist Party and shall be recognized as that, governing proletariat.

Conclusion

as we have seen from this brief, yet informative piece of document, Social Communism only differs on some matters and not everything in Marxist belief or Orthodox Communism. Those differences hold the basic tenets of Social Communism as they are the reason they are not orthodox Communism.
After reading your post, I find it difficult to understand how you can reach the goals you have set forth. You were saying that you also believe in Marxist principles, however, there is no clear indication here as to how you could reach communism.

Utopian Socialists almost have the same ideas as what you have posted. The difference between them and Marxism is that Marxists are revolutionaries. That Marxists believe that communism will not just get onto us like a fruit falling down from the trees after it has rotten.

Marxists believe that communism will be attained through a social revolution (led by the proletariat). it is a waste of time wating for Capitlism to just fall down on its own. It must be overthrown.



Social Communism holds firm the abolition of Private Property, all Capitalistic ideals of which include the: Employee and Employer, Free Markets, and Labour force. Social Communism holds firm the ownership of Property by the proletariat as whole, Ownership of resources by the proletariat as whole, ownership of land by the proletariat as whole.

Social Communism holds firm the idea economics for the proletariat by the proletariat for the proletariat, These include local proletariat of any region owning business for the Local proletariat by the local proletariat. All proletariat Business shall profit the local proletariat and the governing proletariat. All proletariat Business are shall benifit the whole region and not only certain parts of the region.


Sounds like Social Democratic ideas. Not Marxism. Again not clear how this thing will be achieved. A certain utopian thought is inserted.


Social Communism does not discourage any believe. all ideals are welcome to work with the ideals of Social Communism, thus Social Communism is open to all ideals. these stands to be a major divide between Social Communists and Marxists/Orthodox Communists.

Social Communist must hold dear that any religion is appropiate within the framework of Communism, thus Social Communism is open to religions.

Religion is an opium for the people. Certainly, religion is in contrast with Dialectical and Historical Materialism. These two are exact opposites like the proletariat and the capitalists.



Social Classes and Social Communism

Social Communism differs from Marxists/Orthodox Communism in a governing Hierarchy. In order for a civilazations to further itself, it must have a good governing Hierarchy, thus this is a direct cancelation of cancelation Marx&#39;s "No Social Classes of any kind"

Social Communism afirms that there should be No Social Classes within the proletariat. The proletariat should have no sense of Classes within the proletariat itself but must a firm the rights of the governing proletariat.

Social classes and hierarchy are not the exact comparisons. Hierarchy is a product of divisions of society into classes. And social classes are determined by the person&#39;s participation in the production, share from the products, and ownership of the means of production.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by anomaly
In fact, new scientific research indicates that the human brain is &#39;hard wired&#39; for belief, and that belief in God, in something beyond this life, is an accident due to brain chemicals.

You know it helps to "look this stuff up" before mindlessly repeating another urban myth.

For example...

Brain&#39;s &#39;God module&#39; may affect religious intensity (http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Health/health19.htm)

There&#39;s a particularly interesting summary early in this account...


In a provocative experiment with patients suffering from an unusual form of epilepsy, researchers at the UC-San Diego brain and perception laboratory determined that the parts of the brain&#39;s temporal lobe -- which the scientists quickly dubbed the "God module" -- may affect how intensely a person responds to religious beliefs.

Emphasis added&#33;

It is not "human brains" that are "hard wired" to be superstitious...it is the brains of sick people -- a very tiny minority of the human population.

It also helps to wonder why the scientists involved chose to postulate a "god module" in human brains.

I have suggested an answer to this question...

A Glimpse into the Godracket (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114361146&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I think you will find it enlightening.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif