Is this movement warful?

[Astronomer]

First, I beg - yes beg - all of you to come at this post with an open mind. I'm sure i'll get flamed, but I am a newbie in this understanding and ask for some tolerance - if possible.

I'm a Socialist who strongly supports a system someday that is free of discrimination against the lower classes - in this respect I feel I am a lot like the people probably reading this. I'm not a Capitalist or a right-winger. I just want to get that out in the air first.

I've just recently started looking through boards, websites, blogs, etc... and, eventhough, I love the philosophy of Socialism/communism - I feel alienated by others who appreciate this system.

I see it as a way to help out my fellow mankind and to bring the end of suffering, if possible, towards others. I don't want to pride myself as a humanitarian or anything, but I do hope to spend my entire life helping others - both as a pre-med student planning to enter med school and as a Socialist who goes out of his way to work at soup kitchens, lobby behind economic reforms, etc...

I, however, don't see myself as having "enemies." I think hate and enemy go together and I don't enjoy saying that I have or believe in either. I have friends that are right-wing and they know where I stand. I don't hate them - and i'd never hate anyone who has a political or religious philosophy that is different than my own.

Over these last few weeks of looking at online communist sources I have been very surprised to see a lot of them verbally, and in time support the physical' attacking of others. I've seen communists always refer to America as Amerikkka - which I think is immature and against progression. I've also seen communists namecall right-wingers - even when the right-wingers didn't start it.

Why? Do they believe the only way to bring about change is through violence and war? I don't - and i'm sorry if others disagree and maybe that is the answer to why we are different. America is changing - so is the rest of the world. Since the end of the cold war the average American is beginning to sympathize with Socialism and a small amount of them are also beginning to sympathize even with Communism. I see change being made peacefully - sure it is slowly.

I think America will be a Socialist nation by 2050 - simply due to pressure by so many Americans and lobby groups. I'm not the only one who thinks this way - ask most Americans if they think America is becoming more regulative towards business and more oriented toward the needed and they'll probably say yes. Sure since Bush came into office it's been slowed down dramatically, but he'll be gone soon and even the Republicans that will probably take over for him won't be as business oriented.

So, basically I just want to understand why. I feel like a Christian who can't understand fundamentalists and i'd just like to. Is this movement warful? Are right wingers your enemy and would you actually like to see them dead rather than negotiate? Is Communism not negotiable? Do you feel violence is the only answer to get from a Capitalist to a Communism system? Once in the Communist system do you feel violence and censorship is the only way to stay in that system?

[ComradeOm]

Well first of all its important to ask what communist hope to obtain. We're not looking for "a system someday that is free of discrimination against the lower classes", we seek a system in which classes do not exist at all. Its important to note this as it disguinishes us from the likes of the social democrats who simply want a "nicer" form of capitalism.

As for the necessity of violence, I find it useful to quote from Engels' Communist FAQ (stickied in this forum)...


16. Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

[redstar2000]

The transition from nomadism to classical despotism was violent.

The transition from classical despotism to feudalism was violent.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism was violent.

So what about the transition from capitalism to communism?

What sounds reasonable to you?

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

[Astronomer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:38 PM
The transition from nomadism to classical despotism was violent.

The transition from classical despotism to feudalism was violent.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism was violent.

So what about the transition from capitalism to communism?

What sounds reasonable to you?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I don't think it's fair to compare ourselves to earlier times when so much has changed in the world. Today's world is different. People no longer live in gated communities completely isolated from the rest of the world. Television itself is a good method of exchange. As I said in my post, most Americans today sympathize with the fundamentals of this cause. The fact is, in today's society there will not be a revolution based on war. It will be a peaceful transition simply because todays American society is not, today, capable of a revolt in the way of violence. Even the recent immigration protests, which were extremely emotional, were peaceful. The world is more global than isolated, with this globalization the chances of millions hiting the streets and burning the white house just doesn't seem plausible.

[Astronomer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:35 PM
Well first of all its important to ask what communist hope to obtain. We're not looking for "a system someday that is free of discrimination against the lower classes", we seek a system in which classes do not exist at all. Its important to note this as it disguinishes us from the likes of the social democrats who simply want a "nicer" form of capitalism.

As for the necessity of violence, I find it useful to quote from Engels' Communist FAQ (stickied in this forum)...


Thank you for quoting Engel - as i've said i'm a newbie and, as a result, haven't been able to read as much about these great authors. However, as with every author that wrote before 1960, I realize their views might be based on a world that, I feel, doesn't exist anymore - at least not exactly the same.

I'm sorry my description wasn't very good - I also hope for a classless society. I was simply trying to give, what I thought, was a very simple description. Although, Socialism has to come before Communism in my opinion - and I think Socialism will come in my lifetime. A society with no money and no classes won't, unfortunately, be in my life time.

I also plan to learn more about Democratic Socialists during my free time this summer - as a means of finding where I belong.

[tambourine_man]

Do you feel violence is the only answer to get from a Capitalist to a Communism system?
well,
now, the bourgeoisie has a dictatorship over the economic means of production, and therefore, over the whole of social and political life.
communists seek to reverse this dictatorship to one that empowers the proletariat - the dictatorship of the proletariat - in order to achieve a stateless, classless society.
naturally, this will provoke a violent response from the ruling class, which must necessarily be met with a violent response on the part of the working class.


Once in the Communist system do you feel violence and censorship is the only way to stay in that system?
no, not at all.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Astronomer
I don't think it's fair to compare ourselves to earlier times when so much has changed in the world.

Some things have changed a lot; other things haven't changed much at all.

Consider, for example, a ruling class that feels "threatened"...that thinks their power in society is "on the line".

Past ruling classes have reacted violently...in 1932-33, the German capitalist class "hired Hitler" to stop the "communist threat" -- and that even when the German communist party was not a real threat yet at all!

In revolutionary periods, the source of violence is not usually the revolutionaries...it comes mostly from the old ruling class willing to "do anything" to stay in power.

Peasant uprisings in the "third world" are violent -- it's called "protracted people's war" in left "jargon" and is, to all intents and purposes, a civil war. Even then, most of the violence -- including the worst massacres, wide-spread use of torture, etc. -- comes from the formal and informal forces of the "old regime". You may run into "horror stories" about the FARC in Colombia or Shining Path in Peru or even old stuff about the "Viet Cong"...but if you really look into those events, you'll quickly find that the vast majority of the violence came from government-sponsored sources.

Communists do not "advocate violence" because we "love the smell of blood" or anything silly like that. We recognize that the overthrow of class society is very likely to involve some violence...because old ruling classes don't just "quietly surrender" their power. "How much" violence is largely "up to" that old ruling class...how brutal and murderous are they willing to be in order to stay in power?

There's also something else to keep in mind. Revolution is "against the law". :lol:

Historically, the "socialists" who made a point of how "peaceful" and "law-abiding" they were turned out not to be socialists at all!

That is, they said they were "for socialism" but their real loyalties were to the "maintenance of order and legality". They turned out to be willing to embrace the old regime to stop any kind of socialist revolution from happening.

So whenever you run into someone who claims to "hate capitalism" but also makes a big deal of being "peaceful" and "nonviolent" and "legal", watch out! That person will end up siding with the capitalists!

Count on it. :angry:

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

[Janus]

So whenever you run into someone who claims to "hate capitalism" but also makes a big deal of being "peaceful" and "nonviolent" and "legal", watch out! That person will end up siding with the capitalists!
Well, sometimes that may be done due to government oppressions and pressure. Of course, this was true during the time period of the Smith Acts. I think that if a communist claims to be totally pacifist then that would be a bad sign but many younger communists are usually unsure of this issue. I mean it's kind of difficult sometimes for a young man/woman to contemplate open warfare with the government. But I'm sure that as time passes, more and more will see the necessity of violence even inf they may only want it as a last resort.

[anomaly]

There will be some violence. That is inevitable. But how violent will it be?

Though the bourgeoisie will be losing power by entering communist society, I think they value their lives over that power. By the time the revolution comes, the bourgeoisie should be very few in number. Maybe a maximum of 5% of the population. So, it will be a huge majority of people overthrowing this tiny minority. Those bourgeoisie who don't accept this transition, and thus resort to counterrevolutionary activity will be even fewer in number. And this should be able to be easily suppressed.

So there will be violence. But I don't think there will be so much.

[Aurora]

I dont think anyone here wants a violent revolution but it will probably happen.Sad as this may be,it seems inevitable.


I'm sure i'll get flamed, but I am a newbie in this understanding and ask for some tolerance - if possible.
Why would we flame you comrade?You are not raving stupidly about how great capitalism is without any proof.You are just trying to learn more about this community :)


I've seen communists always refer to America as Amerikkka
Thats seriously immature and racist,they are no comrade of mine.

[A Man of no Nation]

First off. I would like to start by saying that I like were this topic is going. I am so tired of reading posts where it is people just screaming, "You are wrong, and I am right" kind of nonsence. I too am learning a lot from this.

But I do want to make some comments:


"I don't think it's fair to compare ourselves to earlier times when so much has changed in the world."

I couldn´t agree more. Too many people (especially conservatives) always compare the present with the past. Things are very very different today than they were 100 years ago. It is time we start thinking for ourselves and not depend so much on the past. Do not get me wrong, we can learn so much from the past. But sometimes these militants (including George Bush) think that there is only one solution and one simple belief for something as complicated as politics and society as a whole. By saying, "war is the only way" is an ignorant belief. As compasionate (not militant) human beings, war should be a last resort.


"I dont think anyone here wants a violent revolution but it will probably happen.Sad as this may be,it seems inevitable."

Again, I am not trying to put down anyone here. We are all comrads trying to learn from eachother. But this sounds like something I would hear from a church. "ohhhh well, there will always be extreme poverty, there will always be war, there will always be people starving to death; that is why we need jesus" kind of crap. I am not saying I do not like christians or anything (I have many friends who are). But this is a very ignorant belief. Why can´t human being evolve? Or atleast evolve mentally. Why is war inevitable? We need to have more of an optimistic mindset than that. I do not know about you guys, but I am tired of living by this theme, "One Nation Under The Gun".



"You may run into "horror stories" about the FARC in Colombia or Shining Path in Peru or even old stuff about the "Viet Cong"...but if you really look into those events, you'll quickly find that the vast majority of the violence came from government-sponsored sources."

This is very very true. In Colombia, more than 74% of all humanitarian rights violations (tortures, masacres, displaced, etc) comes from the right-wing paramilitares and the military combined. I am not saying I am a FARC or ELN supporter. But in the long run, who is the "terrorist"? As for stopping government-sponsored sources (which a wopping majority comes from the states) we need to educate. Picking up a gun and killing someone does not necesarily teach someone a lesson. Education is what makes people stronger than those with the most ammo. Always remember, bullets cannot silence ideas.


"But I'm sure that as time passes, more and more will see the necessity of violence even inf they may only want it as a last resort."

But why is violence necesary? No one has yet given an answer. They just accept it because it is all they know. Here is a poor example, but an example nevertheless. I live in Ecuador. Since I am a gringo (north american), I receive a lot of racism for something I cannot help (what am I supposed to say..."Sorry, I promise next time I will be born Latino?"). So, should I just pick up a gun and kill everyone who doesn´t believe what I believe? Is it my duty, here in ecuador, to slaughter anyone who makes a racist comment at me? Of course not. Another time, EDUCATION! And so far it is working. When I met my girlfriend, she told me something like, "go back where you came from yankee". But once she knew who I was and what I believed, she and many of here friends began to see that not all white north americans are the same. We have been together for more than 6 months by the way. You know why? Because I educated and erased their ignorant beliefs.

Capitalism is the same way. To most people (especially in the United States) it is all they know. Meaning, if I pick up a gun and kill them for being capitalists, nothing good will come of it...just make more and more people hate communists. For the last time, war is a last resort (and an ignorant one at that).


Thank you for your time and I hope to learn from everyone here.

abrazos hermanos

-a man of no nation

[Janus]

I've seen communists always refer to America as Amerikkka
That's MIM for you. They also spell the USA as U$A, women as wimmin, and so forth. Language is so oppressive according to them.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 11:01 AM
lobby behind economic reforms
Reformist!


and i'd never hate anyone who has a political or religious philosophy that is different than my own.

Even if they want to kill you for that?


Over these last few weeks of looking at online communist sources I have been very surprised to see a lot of them verbally, and in time support the physical' attacking of others.

Yes, I'd like nazis to be machinegunned.

So?


I've seen communists always refer to America as Amerikkka - which I think is immature and against progression.

You probably saw that said by a Maoist. Don't even bother with the MIM kind of Maoists, they are almost a religion.


Why? Do they believe the only way to bring about change is through violence and war?

Well, considering history, it would be necessary to do it that way. The ruling class can always bring some military wacko to "restore order", "kill the subversives" and "defend the Institutions".


America is changing - so is the rest of the world. Since the end of the cold war the average American is beginning to sympathize with Socialism and a small amount of them are also beginning to sympathize even with Communism. I see change being made peacefully - sure it is slowly.

No. I'm not an "American", but it seems that there, now it's "cool", even "good for the economy", for people to be a leftist.

However, most people seem to be religious fundamentalists and ignorant conservatives.


I'm not the only one who thinks this way - ask most Americans if they think America is becoming more regulative towards business and more oriented toward the needed and they'll probably say yes.

I thought the opposite had been happening since the 80s...


Sure since Bush came into office it's been slowed down dramatically, but he'll be gone soon and even the Republicans that will probably take over for him won't be as business oriented.

No, they will probably be religion oriented...which is even worse.


Is this movement warful?

What does that mean?


Are right wingers your enemy and would you actually like to see them dead rather than negotiate?

False dilemma.


Do you feel violence is the only answer to get from a Capitalist to a Communism system?

It doesn't matter how much you try to avoid violence, the ruling class will be free to use violence against you, so what do you expect revolutionaries to do? Sing "Give Peace A Chance"? Put flowers in gun barrels?


Once in the Communist system do you feel violence and censorship is the only way to stay in that system?

Why would violence be necessary then?

Do you even know what "Communism" means?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:41 PM

I've seen communists always refer to America as Amerikkka
That's MIM for you. They also spell the USA as U$A, women as wimmin, and so forth. Language is so oppressive according to them.
Don't forget "persyn" instead of "person", and how some of them even want to replace words like "buddy" and "friend" (I think) with "comrade" :lol:

[Aurora]

Why is war inevitable?

Imagine you have had everything you wanted since birth everything and you have never had to do any work or tire yourself out,just relax do what you want and hang out with your friends who also have had a nice "n" easy life,but then some people say that everybody should do some work.

I bet they would be really angry being told they had to do something,angry enough to hire people to fight for them or fight themselves.That is what the modern beorgeosie will do.

[A Man of no Nation]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:57 PM

Why is war inevitable?

Imagine you have had everything you wanted since birth everything and you have never had to do any work or tire yourself out,just relax do what you want and hang out with your friends who also have had a nice "n" easy life,but then some people say that everybody should do some work.

I bet they would be really angry being told they had to do something,angry enough to hire people to fight for them or fight themselves.That is what the modern beorgeosie will do.
You make a great point amigo. But don´t you realize that not all people are the same? Not all people are violent and not all of us are militant. I live in a country (ecuador) where too many people here think that all 260 million people in the United States are the same and like the president. This has to be one of the most fucking ignorant of ideas I have ever heard. There is no possible way that 260 million people can possibly be the same. The same goes for the upper class people. In fact, most people do not even know that they are upper class. If you own a computer, high speed internet and eat three meals a day...guess what, on a global scale you are upper upper class. I do not mean to get off topic, but someone please explain the definition of upper class.

"That is what the modern beorgeosie will do."

So these millions upon millions of beorgeosie act, feel, and do the same thing in certain situations? Of course not! Sure, you are probably correct with the fact that a couple of upper class will be "...angry enough to hire people to fight for them or fight themselves". The reason the United States has this habbit, is because it is all we are taught. When I grew up in the states, I was always taught in history class that communism was dictatorship and that there was no freedom of expresion. That everyone had to be the same. When I was younger, I thought communism was only a tool used to say that everyone was free, but in reality not. But then I received help from socialists and started to read non-biast literature. I was educated and I learned that we should never stop the struggle for true equality. There is a saying, "once a sheep, always a sheep and once a wolf, always a wolf". This is horseshit because people change and people learn from mistakes. We are capable of changing our view points on life and capable of becoming different people. Beorgeosie can be taught and can change as well. They will with time hear your words that you might teach them.


One more thing I would like to add. Revolution does not necesarily mean "Be Ernesto Guevara". It signifies doing your part to make society the best it can be for everyone. Teaching a kid about communism in itself in a little revolution.

There is not one simple solution for all of the world´s problems.

However, you do make a great point my friend. Sorry for being fucking negative on these boards.

abrazos

[violencia.Proletariat]

The same goes for the upper class people. In fact, most people do not even know that they are upper class. If you own a computer, high speed internet and eat three meals a day...guess what, on a global scale you are upper upper class.

Advanced capitalist countries are not the same as 3rd world countries in terms of development. This isn't relevant to the arguement.


I do not mean to get off topic, but someone please explain the definition of upper class.

Upper class can mean a couple things. If you are bourgeoisie you own the means of production (factories, farms, mines, etc). If you are petty-bourgeois you are a proffessional (lawyer, doctor, etc) or in many of the advanced capitalist countries you manage the bourgeois's money (such as people who work for stock and financial companies). These people are almost always upper class apart from some of the doctors in the petty bourgeois who live average lifestyles in some countries.


We are capable of changing our view points on life and capable of becoming different people.

Yes, the proletarian class is. As Marx predicted, we are the only class that is capable of the communist struggle. But for the bourgeois they have no class interest in changing and becoming "nice people". They have to be violently repressive to maintain their position.


Beorgeosie can be taught and can change as well.

Maybe their kids, maybe. Most will flee during proletarian revolution, so they have no reason to change if they flee to a new capitalist country.


They will with time hear your words that you might teach them.

Why? They have no interest in communism, they already have their needs met and well beyond.

[Aurora]

But don´t you realize that not all people are the same? Not all people are violent and not all of us are militant.
Of course


So these millions upon millions of beorgeosie act, feel, and do the same thing in certain situations? Of course not!
Yes you are right,not all will fight some will be exepted into society but that will probably be an extreeme minority and most will try to leave the country very quickly.But im afraid a few will fight and this leads to bloodshed and it will be nessesary to deal with them, should they die? No,all people have the right to live,but to protect others from them,sacrifices have to be made.


Sorry for being fucking negative on these boards.
No problem :) you are allowed every now and then!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by A Man of no Nation
If you own a computer, high speed internet and eat three meals a day...guess what, on a global scale you are upper upper class. I do not mean to get off topic, but someone please explain the definition of upper class.

It means having so much money that you do not have to work.

You may work if you want to...but on your terms. If you work, fine. If you don't work, also fine.

You're in the driver's seat and don't have to take any shit from anybody.

Why do you think poor people buy lottery tickets? :lol:

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

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Through capitalism, the upper class violently uses wage slavery and other methods to oppress the proleteriat. If we rebelled, they would attempt to punish us - using violence if neccessary. Is our response to violence going to be to use self-defense? I would hope so. The upper class will not sit back while we attempt to vote and reform the system to redistribute wealth.

Communism anticipates a neccessary reaction to violence and oppression. Some argue that non-violent methods of oppression justify immediate violent rebellion. Others say the people will protest, and, after violence is used against them, violently defeat their oppressors. In this way, communism maintains the higher ground for not striking first (in the sense that the average person understands it). Personally, I have nothing against violently rebelling, but I think waiting until direct violence is used against us serves our movement better, and I have no doubt that it will be used.

[Cheung Mo]

Here's my take on pacifism: As a left-wing Canadian quasi-nationalist (In that I oppose allowing American, Chinese, and multinational interests from controlling our resources but have come around on the issue of Quebec self-determination) and a member of the NDP, I disagree with my allies and comrades in the reformist left who support pacifism and oppose both nationalistion and increases in military funding: The more we rely on the U.S. military to defend our country and the more we allow foreign and corporate interests to control our resources, the less sovereignty we have over our foreign, economic, and even domestic policies. What they fail to realise is that we can't have it both ways with regards to political sovereignty: If we keep cutting our military and if we keep surrendering our resources to the neo-liberal elite, how the fuck are we going to be able to distance ourselves from the imperialism, the authoritarianism, and the race-to-the-bottom economics of our world's corporate and political powers?

Because our leaders have sold us out to these interests, we are currently unable to do the following:

-Maintain a humanitarian and independent foreign policy

-Escape from the clutches of race-to-the-bottom neo-liberalism

-End the worthless and totalitarian War on Drugs. (Regulate cannabis, psilocybin, alcohol, and tobacco...Keep hard drugs illegal but provide rehabilitation to those who fuck themselves over on hard drugs....KICK THE FUCKING DEA OUT OF OTTAWA AND VANCOUVER!!! One of the many things I will never forgive The Cretin for.)

-Maintain de jure political independence from Washington

-Keep the Canadian Internet users free from corporate control and the regime of political and religious-inspired censorship that is flourishing in many countries.

-Reform copyright laws so that they favour the artist and the end-user rather than multinational interests. (Thankfully, Canada has fairly benign anti-copyright legislation relative to most of the world, but with international and corporate pressure constantly increasing and a political establishment that is more and more unanimously favouring stricter IP-controls (Oddly, only the eco-capitalist Greens support reasonable policies here...And short of Bob Rae leading a united Liberal-NDP party, I won't even given the Greens the time of day...Even, then I'd just move to Quebec and join Quebec Solidaire or something...), that will not last for much longer.)

-Increase our non-political foreign aid to acceptable levels (We're too busy blowing resources on helping Washington build its puppet states.)

-Expand our social security net to a level that no Canadian is forced to resort to using food banks or living on the streets.

[A Man of no Nation]

Just want to say thanks to nate, Anarion, and redstar2000 for helping me out and expanding my mind.

:D

continue to fight for those who cannot fight.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The term, Class War, sums up what commies and anachists see between the workers and capitalists.

To be honest though, workers are always abused. When the time comes for them to fight back, no one will listen to anyone saying not to use violence.

This is not brutal and indescriminate violence like maoists use, but targetted at cappies and know counter revolutionaries.