Communism Today

[MogenDovid]

As a proud member of the fairly new British Socialist party which split from R.E.S.P.E.C.T on political grounds, I think it's fair to say I'm left wing. However, that said I do have some reservations about Left wing theories and how they may or may not be applied to today's society.

I agree whole-heartedly with Marx on the idea of the abandonment of International borders. It would clear up a lot of troubles. But I think that Marxist theory can not be applied to the world as we understand it to be.

Firstly, with religious extremism growing in a frightening manner on a daily basis, the idea of turning around to the Isreali people and saying "Sorry, but you can't have the land that G-d promised you, it now belongs to everyone" is frankly laughable. In fact, all of Isreal would laugh at you, to your face.

Secondly, current economic applications that exist would be instantly destroyed. Trade as we know it would either be destroyed or undergo drastic changes. Trade would have to cease and then be recreated, but who would be the creator? What makes them so certain that such as system - if indeed there is to be a new system - would work? I personally would be too afraid to make a mistake and suddenly find an entire nation without food, water, medical supplies, petrol and other essentials.

Thirdly. Nationalism has exist in some countries for as long the middle to late 17h Century in England at least. It is still a fairly new idea but has been ingrained in atleast one generation of people. Nationalism IS NOT a bad thing. It encourages a people living within the confines of a set of borders to strive to achieve the best for that country. Take, for instance, the United Kingdom. Here it is entirely possible for one man/woman to rise above their peers through academic hardship and earn a great deal, and for that they are praised. Yet there are still those among us who work in factories, corner shops and other service providing industries who are content to work there. I'm not saying that they should be made to stay there, merely paid more so that they aren't made to feel forced into working there. However, demanding higher wages for the working class is just plain awkward - I'll talk more about this later.

No-one is less than their neighbour. There is nothing to stop "Ahmed Singh" (and I'm using the Asian equivalent of Joe Bloggs) from earning £8.25 an hour behind a desk if he has some letters behind his name. There are some poor deluded souls out there, however, who still pay anyone not White, Male and Christian, less than the money they deserve. Those people should be lined up so people know who they are and metaphorically shot.

So my question to you reading this post is : - can we still apply any aspects of Communism to the world today? Doesn't it fall on its face at every turn, hurdle and indeed mole-hill?

I'm interested in your response. And please, don't waste my time with "Capitalism is evil" rants "Britain is Imperialistic" and swearing. Those three would just get plainly and simply ignored. I'm up for a good sourced debate/discussion with anyone.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:58 PM




Firstly, with religious extremism growing in a frightening manner on a daily basis, the idea of turning around to the Isreali people and saying "Sorry, but you can't have the land that G-d promised you, it now belongs to everyone" is frankly laughable. In fact, all of Isreal would laugh at you, to your face.

the israelies who can move out of israel yet choose to stay worry me a bit. it doesnt make too much sense to stay in a place where people want to kill you. besides sane people know god doesnt exist, so to tell them that would be the truth :)



Secondly, current economic applications that exist would be instantly destroyed. Trade as we know it would either be destroyed or undergo drastic changes. Trade would have to cease and then be recreated, but who would be the creator? What makes them so certain that such as system - if indeed there is to be a new system - would work? I personally would be too afraid to make a mistake and suddenly find an entire nation without food, water, medical supplies, petrol and other essentials.

workers councils/syndicates and the union would keep trade going just fine and even better then the wasteful economics of capitalism.

[MogenDovid]

QUOTE
Firstly, with religious extremism growing in a frightening manner on a daily basis, the idea of turning around to the Isreali people and saying "Sorry, but you can't have the land that G-d promised you, it now belongs to everyone" is frankly laughable. In fact, all of Isreal would laugh at you, to your face.


the israelies who can move out of israel yet choose to stay worry me a bit. it doesnt make too much sense to stay in a place where people want to kill you. besides sane people know god doesnt exist, so to tell them that would be the truth


You suggest that sanity determines a persons right to choose a way of life? By that reckoning then, Communism is insane. It is a way of life, just like a religion. And who are you to deny the existence of someone's deity? No-one has that right. Only the dead, and the dead stay silent. It's an act of faith. Just like believing that Communism would work is an act of faith.



QUOTE

Secondly, current economic applications that exist would be instantly destroyed. Trade as we know it would either be destroyed or undergo drastic changes. Trade would have to cease and then be recreated, but who would be the creator? What makes them so certain that such as system - if indeed there is to be a new system - would work? I personally would be too afraid to make a mistake and suddenly find an entire nation without food, water, medical supplies, petrol and other essentials.


workers councils/syndicates and the union would keep trade going just fine and even better then the wasteful economics of capitalism.


Wasteful? Hm. An interesting use of words. Yet without an equally or perhaps moreso successful system of Communist " international " trade to compare it to, what makes you so sure its wasteful? Perhaps you'd like to clarify your definition of "wasteful economics" for me?

Thank you for your reply. :D

[kurt]

Anyone with half a brain can tell that capitalism has a tendency for waste at least on some level. Take for example the burning of crops in order to drive the price of them up in the market. That's a waste.

[Zingu]

You sound like you have the "Bernstein Syndrome". You strike me as an "anxious Marxist" as someone I know used the term before.

You have to face the prospect that we might not see Communism in our lifetimes or "today" (I doubt myself), it is true, we are living in a period of reaction. But, you can't equate that with all of history. Socialism, on the other hand, is always a distinct possiblity, no matter how small.

[MogenDovid]

Take for example the burning of crops in order to drive the price of them up in the market.



Where? You can't just site examples like that and then leave them unsourced - it's just going to be laughed at everywhere.

And I'm not saying that capitalism isn't wasteful, of course it is - but isn't every system? No system is perfect and any system that claims to be has one major flaw - arrogance.

[kurt]

Where? You can't just site examples like that and then leave them unsourced - it's just going to be laughed at everywhere.

People also tend to laugh at other people who lack common knowledge. It's generally seen as common knowledge that these practices occur.


[the] US Board of Agriculture had urged cotton producers in 14 states to destroy a third of their crop in the hope that this would drive up the price of the remaining two-thirds
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/643/chrncls.htm



FDR paid farmers to burn their crops and slaughter their livestock.
http://www.mises.org/story/1887



And I'm not saying that capitalism isn't wasteful, of course it is - but isn't every system? No system is perfect and any system that claims to be has one major flaw - arrogance.
Of course there may be some waste. But certainly not a deliberate policy of waste in order to increase profits. That's just stupid.

[MogenDovid]

Thank you for those sources.

Now could you prehaps provide an example of this happening within the last 20 years?

I personally can't name any happening. Even Capitalism doesn't stoop that low any more. There are far to many moral considerations to be taken into account following the downfall of landed elitism and servitude.

Both these sources are valid, if we were living in the 19th Century, but we're not.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 10:49 PM
Thank you for those sources.

Now could you prehaps provide an example of this happening within the last 20 years?

I personally can't name any happening. Even Capitalism doesn't stoop that low any more. There are far to many moral considerations to be taken into account following the downfall of landed elitism and servitude.

Both these sources are valid, if we were living in the 19th Century, but we're not.
This wasn't an event in the 19th century, it happened well into the 20th century. I don't think it's that capitalism wouldn't "stoop" so low again, but the fact that the public outcry to an act might be enormous. I think they're still perfectly capable of such an act, and maybe they still do it in more subtle ways.

Capitalism wastes in many other ways.

"Approximately 60 per cent of the employed in U.S. America are working at tasks that are not producing any life support. Jobs of inspectors-of-inspectors; jobs with insurance companies that induce people to bet that their house is going to be destroyed by fire while the insurance company bets that it isn't"(Critical Path - R Buckminster Fuller, p262)

I'm not going to bother with any more "searching" for you. You can do the rest on your own. Perhaps I've "sparked" your curiousity.

[redstar2000]

This does not seem to me to be a suitable topic for this forum; therefore I'm moving it to Opposing Ideologies.


Originally posted by MogenDovid
""Sorry, but you can't have the land that G-d promised you, it now belongs to everyone"

There are no "gods" and consequently no valid claims to any piece of territory by anyone based on the "promises" of any "gods".


Secondly, current economic applications that exist would be instantly destroyed.

Or at least radically disrupted. It wouldn't be the first time that such things have happened.

In the "grand scheme" of things, it's not a "big deal"...though possibly inconvenient for a while.


Nationalism IS NOT a bad thing.

In the forms in which it presently exists, yeah, it's mostly "a bad thing"...in fact, it's become as much of a superstition as religion.

You know...ignorant, brutal, irrational, etc.


And who are you to deny the existence of someone's deity?

Rational people always "have the right" to denounce superstition in the harshest of terms.

It "comes with the territory". :)

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

[MogenDovid]

QUOTE (MogenDovid)
""Sorry, but you can't have the land that G-d promised you, it now belongs to everyone"


There are no "gods" and consequently no valid claims to any piece of territory by anyone based on the "promises" of any "gods".


Prove there are no g-ds. My belief in them is taken on faith as well as my belief in Marxism is.




QUOTE
Nationalism IS NOT a bad thing.


In the forms in which it presently exists, yeah, it's mostly "a bad thing"...in fact, it's become as much of a superstition as religion.

You know...ignorant, brutal, irrational, etc.


I think you're confusing Nationalism with Radical Nationalism. The two are very opposite. Nationalism encourages a sense of community and belonging, the same as most sensible religions. Radical Nationalism encourages narrow-mindedness, aggression to other cultures and is generally linked with most negative aspects of human social behaviour.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:56 AM
Prove there are no g-ds. My belief in them is taken on faith as well as my belief in Marxism is.
You are the one asserting a belief. The burden of proof is on you.

Or we could simply ask ourselves "Is there one shred of evidence that some god exists?" The answer is no. Unless you're willing to blindly follow the words of long dead "prophets" and "holy men".

And will your god smite you down if you spell his name in full?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by MogenDovid+Dec 16 2005, 11:56 AM--> (MogenDovid @ Dec 16 2005, 11:56 AM) Nationalism encourages a sense of community and belonging, the same as most sensible religions. [/b]
It also creates a sense of hatred of anyone who isnt your nationality and/or your religion.


MogenDovid @ Dec 16 [email protected] 11:56 AM
My belief in them is taken on faith as well as my belief in Marxism is.

There will be no marxism if people are nationalistic because the ruling class will play us (the prolaterian) of against each other and therefor we will remain divided and a revolution will never take place.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Now could you prehaps provide an example of this happening within the last 20 years?

Try just about every supermarket larger than your local cornershop. every day perfectly edible food is being thrown away while people go hungry and starve.


Prove there are no g-ds. My belief in them is taken on faith as well as my belief in Marxism is.

You're the one saying that God/s exist, not me. If I were to try and disprove the existance of your god, it would be ridiculously easy for you to come up with endless rationalisations as to why I can't detect him.

[violencia.Proletariat]

You suggest that sanity determines a persons right to choose a way of life?

im saying people who will risk there lives to live in a very dangerous place because an imaginery god told them it was theres is not very bright.


It is a way of life, just like a religion.

not its not a lifestyle. nor is it a religion. you dont say, "hey im gonna live like a communist today".


And who are you to deny the existence of someone's deity?

a person who asks valid questions. where is it? i dont see any god up there


No-one has that right. Only the dead, and the dead stay silent. It's an act of faith. Just like believing that Communism would work is an act of faith.

bullshit. communism is an act of looking at material conditions and the necessity and probability of it. not "faith". i also like how you pull the "only the dead" shit, as if trying to make it sound sacred.


what makes you so sure its wasteful? Perhaps you'd like to clarify your definition of "wasteful economics" for me?

capitalism is not about effiency, wage labor is not efficient. its about maximizing profit not the good use of resources. ill go into more detail later as i have to go now.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:56 AM
Prove there are no g-ds. My belief in them is taken on faith as well as my belief in Marxism is.


If your support of Marxism is faith based, well basically you missed the point. Marxism seeks to alter the perceived material reality in which we exist, for the proletariat. By destroying classes all will be the proletariat.

We have certain logical ways in which we understand our material reality, faith goes aginst this. If you are religious and feel you can prove thi, then that is one thing, however to follow because of faith in something is a problem that stunted human developement for a long time.

There is a religious forum for defending religion etc, but here you are, what are you doing actually? You follow Marx because you "believe?" Marxism differs from religion because it isn't about our relationship with something outside of our reality, or a lifestyle suggestion for our reality, it is about changing reality.

[MogenDovid]

There we go. There is another example that I've found on a point being missed. PLease, let me re-iterate my original point and ask you once more - can you apply Marxist theory to today's society for me.

As a proud member of the fairly new British Socialist party which split from R.E.S.P.E.C.T on political grounds, I think it's fair to say I'm left wing. However, that said I do have some reservations about Left wing theories and how they may or may not be applied to today's society.

I agree whole-heartedly with Marx on the idea of the abandonment of International borders. It would clear up a lot of troubles. But I think that Marxist theory can not be applied to the world as we understand it to be.

Firstly, with religious extremism growing in a frightening manner on a daily basis, the idea of turning around to the Isreali people and saying "Sorry, but you can't have the land that G-d promised you, it now belongs to everyone" is frankly laughable. In fact, all of Isreal would laugh at you, to your face.

Secondly, current economic applications that exist would be instantly destroyed. Trade as we know it would either be destroyed or undergo drastic changes. Trade would have to cease and then be recreated, but who would be the creator? What makes them so certain that such as system - if indeed there is to be a new system - would work? I personally would be too afraid to make a mistake and suddenly find an entire nation without food, water, medical supplies, petrol and other essentials.

Thirdly. Nationalism has exist in some countries for as long the middle to late 17h Century in England at least. It is still a fairly new idea but has been ingrained in atleast one generation of people. Nationalism IS NOT a bad thing. It encourages a people living within the confines of a set of borders to strive to achieve the best for that country. Take, for instance, the United Kingdom. Here it is entirely possible for one man/woman to rise above their peers through academic hardship and earn a great deal, and for that they are praised. Yet there are still those among us who work in factories, corner shops and other service providing industries who are content to work there. I'm not saying that they should be made to stay there, merely paid more so that they aren't made to feel forced into working there. However, demanding higher wages for the working class is just plain awkward - I'll talk more about this later.

No-one is less than their neighbour. There is nothing to stop "Ahmed Singh" (and I'm using the Asian equivalent of Joe Bloggs) from earning £8.25 an hour behind a desk if he has some letters behind his name. There are some poor deluded souls out there, however, who still pay anyone not White, Male and Christian, less than the money they deserve. Those people should be lined up so people know who they are and metaphorically shot.

So my question to you reading this post is : - can we still apply any aspects of Communism to the world today? Doesn't it fall on its face at every turn, hurdle and indeed mole-hill?

I'm interested in your response. And please, don't waste my time with "Capitalism is evil" rants "Britain is Imperialistic" and swearing. Those three would just get plainly and simply ignored. I'm up for a good sourced debate/discussion with anyone.

I do not want to have this argument collapse into a religious row. Grant me the respect of a human being and give me a little credit. I am not out to get you. There is no Jewish conspiracy to use religion to shatter Marxism. That said, please answer my post.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:56 AM
Prove there are no g-ds. My belief in them is taken on faith as well as my belief in Marxism is.

Im presuming by the fact that you missed out the 'o' in Gods that your Jewish.

Well, I can disprove the Judaeo-Christian god very easily.

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

Have a nice day.

[MogenDovid]

Again, not answering the question. I won't grace any more religious intolerance with a response as it detracts from my original point.

[Hegemonicretribution]

It wasn't so much missing your point, believe me, I stand up for the religious here more than most. I was simply saying that your concerns were not appropriate, they are non-issues. If conflict is still occuring in Israel, then until it is resolved it cannot become communist. Fuck labels, or economics, it simply will not be.

My main issue was not about religion, but that you said that you took Marxism on faith, and that would suggest you have a different understanding, or perhaps lackthereof, of what is being discussed.

Joining a party means very little, and reformist politics have a fairly poor reputation around here. Of course this can just be seen as another way by which the lives of the proletariat can be improved, but capitalism will not simply hand everything over, and that is why this is a site for revolutionary ideals.

You asked whether or not communism can be applied today, in short; most probably not. If you mean in the Marxist sense, then a transitory period would be required first, and ass this isn't under way we could not make the jump to communism at this time. Some also question whether or not conditions are right for even a socialist revolution right now.

One of the reasons could be argued (at least in some places) to actually be preventing this is religion, acting as an "opiate of the people." Just out of interest, if you could choose communism and no religion, or religion and capitalism which would you choose?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 06:48 AM
Again, not answering the question. I won't grace any more religious intolerance with a response as it detracts from my original point.
just because your views are challenged and you cant defend them doesnt make us "intolerant". however we arent tolerant of "religious communists" because there is no such thing. lots of us arent tolerant of religious institutions and organizations. as Hegemonicretribution has already stated religion and communism dont mix. religion is one of the problems that stands in the way of communism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

^Actually I claim an exception is plausable, however I accept that most religion is not in this form. Marxism is anti-institutional, and advocation of a church is not compatible, likewise holding a being above another is not (even if the are a presupposed god).

[Publius]

workers councils/syndicates and the union would keep trade going just fine and even better then the wasteful economics of capitalism.



Proof of this?

[MogenDovid]

Religion and capitalism or communism and no religion....hm...well as Marx didn't exactly say no to religion then I'd say religion AND communism.

Religious intolerance means accusing people of being insane for having a belief, proof - nate




besides sane people know god doesnt exist



It also means not allowing someone the benefit of faith and completely denying their religion just because it doesn't appeal to you - redstar2000




There are no "gods"


As for you points on my actual point - perhaps you'd care to expand on them? I'm interested in your theories.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's an act of faith. Just like believing that Communism would work is an act of faith.

Right... except for not at all.

Communism is not based in "faith". Communism is a living, scientific theory based on historical materialism.

Religion is "belief" in deity/ies someone created how-ever-many year ago, with zero basis in material reality.

Personally, I'd love it if these people would at least read one or two of the most basic texts regarding communism before they attempt to come here and tell us "what communism is".

[MogenDovid]

Don't asume I know nothing of communism.

Here's a little list of some of the works I've read and believe it or not - understood

Marx
Trotsky
Chomsky

Granted a small list but not easy to understand when you're reading it when you're 16. It's been a long time but my memory is still pretty damn good. Besides, what with a History degree on the go I think it's fair to say I've read all sides of the argument. So don't give me any of that "read communist pamphlets" rubbish. Try reading something other than communist sloganeering. You might even be able to have an interlectual debate with me if you do.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by MogenDovid
Don't asume I know nothing of communism.

Well people can make their own judgements on this one. I suggest they read this thread -- Reducation camps (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43960&st=25) -- if they wish to formulate an opinion on your knowledge of Communist theory.


Marx

What Marx have you read?


Chomsky

Chomsky is not a Communist.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Easy armchair, this guy clearly understands our "faith" :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 04:30 AM
Easy armchair, this guy clearly understands our "faith" :lol:

:lol:

On a side note, (I know this is something you will love), he's an "academic." All hail the petty bourgeois. :lol:

[Hegemonicretribution]

You may claim that Marx was ever so tollerant of religion, but he saw the institution of the church as a reactionary element in our society, and acting as a conservative force.

You talk about existence outside of our perceived material reality, and workers will find it hard not to accept their position. The church has held power over workers for way to long, and like all institutions in capitalist society we must be critical of it.

Put it like this, even if god(s) did exist, it would be neccesary to abolish them.

You may have read Marx, but you aren't the only one, and Marx heavily criticised religion, although most of it was made with direct reference to churches.

Anyway, whilst you claim everyone avoids your actual questions, I believe I responded to them earlier. I asked you a direct choice question, purely hypothetically, and it wasn't surprising that you, like everyone faced with questions of this sort, made up a new option. Your preference goes without stating, I was asking a direct choice based on the idea that "hypothetically" religion and Marxism are mutually exclusive (whether they are or not can be debated in another forum).

The reason I ask this is because, as I have stated, Marx categorised religion as a conservative force. A means of the ruling class, by which they can hold ultimate power over workers. If they ever achieved class consciousness the bourgeois would be fucked, and using god to prevent this seemed like a good idea to them.

Marx was of Jewish descent, but himself an athiest, and you might put down his observations partially to this, however to understand something you must go with it fully. To understand capitalism, you must read and imagine capitalism as it is written, and the same with Marx.

[MogenDovid]

Fair points Hegemonicretribution and I have to confess that Marx being of Jewish decent was news to me. However, because he targeted state enforced religion as opposed to religion itself, I really don't see religion as being that bad.

I mean how can something that allows a person to escape from the restrictions of society be inheritantly evil? Surely Marx would not begrudge a man/woman/child of their right to personal freedom? Or is that what Communism frowns on. Does a Communist society similar to the one generally proposed on here want everyone to be the same? Is that such a wise idea? Economically I would have to agree, but personally, religiously and in every other way I would take offence at that idea and even though it goes against my very nature, I would fight to stop this version of Communism in favour for something a little more understanding of religion and personal freedoms.

Perhaps you mean that anything state enforced is abolished. Good idea, don't make it state enforced but still allow it's existence. That seems very plausible and I would gladly support it. Don't cross that very fine line between religious intolerance and social equality.

[ReD_ReBeL]

my opinion is that religionn is fine aslong as it doesnt exclude, discrimante or preach against people. it only becomes evil when it is like the Pope and preaches against homosexuals or whatever else. anyway come on i bet half or more of you people on this forum are going to be celebrating christmas which is a RELGIOUS HOLIDAY :o

[MogenDovid]

HELL YEAH!

Can you see the irony here? A Jew, celebrating a Christian holiday symbolised by a pagan symbol...

Besides, it's the season of good will, forget the religious reasons. I enjoy sitting around the table with my family stuffing my face with homemade vegetable pies, vegies and gravy (yup, I'm a vege too - saves on the confusion of what's kosher! :lol: ) :: drools at the thought of mum's cooking ::

And I do wonder how many of you will be buying presents and christmas presents? I am.

[ComradeOm]

I mean how can something that allows a person to escape from the restrictions of society be inheritantly evil? Surely Marx would not begrudge a man/woman/child of their right to personal freedom?
I believe that was Marx’s problem with religion. It was an opiate that allowed people to wallow in fantasies rather than face the harsh realities of life. Instead of confronting facts and their situation people could be deluded into thinking that change was unnecessary. The reality of course being that only change will bring about freedom and improve those harsh realities.

[viva le revolution]

Communism is far from dead. Struggles are still going o in a global context.
Nepal: communists control 80% of the country, with communists also dominating political opposition to the king.
India: Communists control three major states with a rapid rise in guerrilla activities in other states. Major presence in the political scene as well.
Pakistan: Communist movement growing with communists still holding an area of 200 square miles.
Bangladesh: Major communist presence in political scene. Communist called general strikes shut down country for three days.
Phillipines: Communist guerrillas growing in strength.
Cuba: communist government in power.
Colombia: FARC still conducting guerrilla struggle.
Germany: Growing popularity of communist parties in what was east germany.
This is of course discounting revisionist communist governments still in power in China, Vietnam, Laos etc.
I know i am missing a few please feel free to add on.

[Ownthink]

Cuba: communist government in power.
No.

[Hegemonicretribution]

MogenDovid it isn't just state, Marx had a problem with government, the bourgeois and the church, all for their role in perpetuating the suffering of the proletariat. A religious institution formed in conflict based society will resemble this. Perhaps in communism religion could exist as a non-reactionary, mainstream practice, although most would ask why bother, when progression continues.

As it stands though all churches are to be opposed as best I can understand it, I have explained why I think this, do you have any comment? Or is your religious practice individualistic, and seperate from a church?

viva le revolution, calling them selves communist does not make it so, however, you are right, there are class battles being fought.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

Communism today is soley the preserve of angst-ridden teens and un-reformed aged hacks..

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Bugalu [email protected] 22 2005, 10:05 AM
Communism today is soley the preserve of angst-ridden teens and un-reformed aged hacks..
And Capitalism today is the solely preserve of greedy little pricks who think that being born in to a wealthy family entitles you to money while hard working people starve their asses off.

Greedy fuckers.

[Bugalu Shrimp]

And those who struggle under difficult and deprived circumstances to raise themselves above the whinging fucking useless sheep.. =

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 01:27 AM
Religion and capitalism or communism and no religion....hm...well as Marx didn't exactly say no to religion then I'd say religion AND communism.

Religious intolerance means accusing people of being insane for having a belief, proof - nate
Does the statement "religion is the opium of the masses" mean anything to you? Marx was vehemently anti-religious. Religious intolerance is perfectly acceptable. Religions are philosophies that people, though illogically, choose to adopt. If religious intolerance is stupid, I am now creating a religion that believes murdering babies is necessary for human survival. To say my religion is insane would be religious intolerance, by your definition.

When it comes to your question about Marxism, it is not about faith. Marx examined empirical evidence, and he created a theory based on logical intepretations of that evidence. If he was a religious man, people history call him that, but it doesn't. He was an academic. I disagree with Marx on certain issues, but I do think communism is possible. Perhaps you are mistaking the idea of a communist revolution with the propogated lie that communism happens over night. Even some leftists will state that anarcho-communsts, such as myself, believe that, but that is not always true either. Decentralization policy is often the big different between many marxists and anarchists.

Furthermore, you should take into account pragmatic concerns. Communists are concerned with the plight of the working class. Instead of coming up with a foolproof plan for a revolution, many communists are working democratically or through unions to improve the state of the working class. They are chipping away at communism because they realize that the conditions for a revolution are not necessarily perfect. They are creating the conditions they want for that revolution to happen. In some cases, they use democratic action, though many revolutionaries don't waste their time attempting that in bourgeosie capitalist society.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

And Capitalism today is the solely preserve of greedy little pricks who think that being born in to a wealthy family entitles you to money while hard working people starve their asses off.

Greedy fuckers.

Please provide a socio/economic model...that has a proven track record...that you would replace our capitalist one with.

How do you eliminate greed from the human genome?

[JKP]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 6 2006, 06:16 PM

Please provide a socio/economic model...that has a proven track record...that you would replace our capitalist one with.



Please provide a socio/economic model...that has a proven track record...that you would replace our feudalist one with. - Feudal lord from the 1700's

[SCDF]

When I read some posts here, it seems that there are left people who are more violent and dangerous than right people.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

When I read some posts here, it seems that there are left people who are more violent and dangerous than right people.

They "claim" that they are above their tactics and their personas, but I sure don't see don't that. For instance, they have no morals whatsoever, they treat women the same as their misogynist contemporaries, they're pro-drug ABUSE, anti-family (those little spoiled brats, mommy and daddy told them to take out the garbage and that constitutes as AUTHORITARIANISM), pro-violence, fundamentalist anti-religion (thye are so PARANOID about it), love to make fun of people who aren't as intellectually astute as them, and they love to resort to scare tactics that their far-right counterparts use.

And if you're against crap culture like pornography, drug ABUSE, prostitution, violent media, and you attend church sparingly, you're IMMEDIATELY put in the same camp as Pat Robertson and the witch burners from the 1700's.

These people are as crazy as their counterparts and I don't see a difference between them. Frankly, moderate politics that are employed by many in the USA is the way to go. Too bad either idiots can't see it that way.

[SCDF]

Also, some of them use dirty tactics. Like a policeman said: "They trow things at us, use extreme violnece against us. When we go than to them, and try to jail them up, the take children on their arms, so we cannot attack them."

That said a policeman after the riots in Gent, were a riotpolice man was injured cowardly.