What do you consider the lowest point in the

[Cheung Mo]

South African Communist Party, circa 1910s -- "White workers of the world, unite!"

[piet11111]

the lowest for communism.

hmm well castro respecting the pope is a big one but i would consider the use of dialectics and leninism to be the biggest folly's worse is that they are still around.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 13 2006, 04:49 PM
South African Communist Party, circa 1910s -- "White workers of the world, unite!"
Christ, yeah, that's got to be up there.

It depends what you mean by "revolutionary Marxism".

You'd have to say losing the Spanish Civil War was a sore one to take.

The defeat of the German Revolution in 1921 was pretty bad as well.


The Nazi-Soviet pact?
The Moscow trials?

[Amusing Scrotum]

There's also the Mao and Nixon "love in", the homophobia, the rebuilding of Catholic Cathedrals and Churches post-WW2, the Bolsheviks' allowing Sharia Law post-revolution, Shachtman and Neo-Conservatism, Christopher Hitchens....the list could go on.

But basically, Marx's name and the Marxist paradigm has been associated with a lot of shit....and if standards were consistent, then old Adam Smith would be vilified! :lol:

Though if you really want a "winner", then, as YKTMX pointed out, depending on how you define Marxism, I think nothing was worse that First World War German Social-Democracy.

As their slogan read: Workers' of Germany -- PILLAGE!

[Mesijs]

What the hell is wrong with rebuilding cathedrals and churches? If people want to practice their beliefs, let them do so. Communism isn't about crushing someone's beliefs.

To me it's the Red Khmer and Pol Pot. Together with Hitler and the NSDAP they're the worst regime the world has ever seen.

But there are a lot of disgusting things. North-Korea, Stalin's crimes, Mao's crimes, and the crimes of all the other leaders. There were very few 'communist' leaders who really wanted the best for the population. And the problem with these guys is that they weren't pragmatic enough and made mistakes.

[piet11111]

lenin's NEP is also a big one in my opinion.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Mesijs+--> (Mesijs)What the hell is wrong with rebuilding cathedrals and churches?[/b]

The Nazi War Machine flattened whole cities....don't you think it would have made more sense to rebuild homes rather than monuments to superstition?

Indeed, the renovation of old buildings is very labour intensive, so the superstitious can do that if they want....the employees of the Russia State should not show any support for Religion.

And aside from that, Architecturally speaking, Cathedrals are shit....steel-framed buildings are the way to go.


Mesijs
Communism isn't about crushing someone's beliefs.

I imagine people who promote bourgeois liberalism and fascism will flourish in a post-revolutionary society. :lol:

Just some advice here, don't conflate post-modernism with communism....they just don't go together.

And by the way, I'm offended that you tried to "crush" my "belief" that the Russian CP shouldn't have rebuilt Catholic Cathedrals. :lol:

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 08:54 PM
lenin's NEP is also a big one in my opinion.
Can I ask why?

[bolshevik butcher]

The Chinese reovlution getting crushed in 1926 as wella s the spannish and gemran reovlutions being defeated. Spain more so as it should have been won.

[7189]

Stalin's and Mao's crimes to humanity in the name of Socialism. Nothing can justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Apr 13 2006, 09:37 PM--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Apr 13 2006, 09:37 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 08:54 PM
lenin's NEP is also a big one in my opinion.
Can I ask why? [/b]
because to me atleast it was introducing capitalism into russia because lenins "socialism" was not working.

had lenin wanted the best for the russians he would have installed capitalism.
it would have been a major step up for the russians but instead lenin forced a lot of poeple to suffer so that he could be dictator.
ofcourse he did manage to get russia on a fast track to modern times but famine was still a problem for a long time.

if i recall correctly the farmers produced 50% of the food for the country on their NEP ground instead of the collective farms.

[Euro_leftie]

To me it's the Red Khmer and Pol Pot. Together with Hitler and the NSDAP they're the worst regime the world has ever seen.
I hope your not suggesting Hitler was a socialist?He's right-wing.
The worst points in socialism are Stalin,Mao and Pol Pot.

[Scars]

Well, that's a hard one. But here's a few of my picks for 'all time low':

* The suppression of the Paris Commune.

* The failure of Revolutionary Syndicalism in New Zealand in the early 20th Century (although it may seem strange considering what NZ was and is like, the Revolutionary Syndicalist movement was incredibly strong and only became involved in bourgeois politics very late compared to the rest of the labour movement. They also nearly won).

* The Destruction of the Workers Opposition in the Bolshevik Party, as well as the Bolsheviks dropping any pretext of worker democracy, then embracing capitalism with the NEP.

* The horrible treatment of the peasants by the Bolsheviks. Who needs to win people over when you can point a gun in their face!?

* The suppression of the Makhnovists in the Ukraine.

* The failure of the Spainish Revolution and the loss of the Civil War.

* The Setting up of puppet governments throughout Eastern Europe, with the exception of Yugoslavia and Albania, where the Communist installed themselves without Soviet assistance (they actually got more support from the Brits!).

* Yugoslavia nearly being invaded for defying Stalins wishes. I don't think that it was a bad thing that Yugoslavia distanced itself from the USSR and Stalin, but it made life very hard for Yugoslavia for about half a decade.

* The anti-Titoist purges, particularly in Albania and Bulgaria meaning that Titos dreams of a unified Balkan federation were permantly stifled.

* The KKE being defeated in Greece.

* Khrushchev- particularly 'peaceful coexistance' and the 'specialisation of the socialist bloc' (i.e. making the entire bloc economicaly and materialy dependent on the USSR)

* The invasion of Hungary in '56.

* The banning of the Communist Party of Indonesia and the anti-Communist purges that killed over a million people in '60s.

* Invasion of Czechoslovakia in '68

* The suppression of the '68 uprising in France, and De Gaulle subsequently being elected with more support than ever before.

* The failure and collapse of the New Communist movement in the USA. Particularly shameful is the fact that the only party that has been willing to criticise is past actions and make an honest attempt to examine the movements failure is the PLP, who ironically were fairly instrumental in the break up of teh SDS etc.

* The Pol Pot faction of the Khmer Rouge purging all opposition within the Communist Party of Kampuchea and turning Kampuchea into a monumental cluster fuck. (the Pol Potists had complete control by about mid '76)

* Mao's meeting with Nixon in '72.

* The death of Mao Zedong and more importantly, the end of the Cultural Revolution in '76.

* The death of Tito in '80 and the asendency of Nationalist sentiment in Yugoslavia, leading it its ultimate destruction.

* The restoration of full blown capitalism in China.

There are definately others.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by piet11111+Apr 14 2006, 01:37 AM--> (piet11111 @ Apr 14 2006, 01:37 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:37 PM

[email protected] 13 2006, 08:54 PM
lenin's NEP is also a big one in my opinion.
Can I ask why?
because to me atleast it was introducing capitalism into russia because lenins "socialism" was not working.

had lenin wanted the best for the russians he would have installed capitalism.
it would have been a major step up for the russians but instead lenin forced a lot of poeple to suffer so that he could be dictator.
ofcourse he did manage to get russia on a fast track to modern times but famine was still a problem for a long time.

if i recall correctly the farmers produced 50% of the food for the country on their NEP ground instead of the collective farms. [/b]
The NEP was a retreat and Lenin and the Bolsheviks recognised it as such. You have to place it in the context of starvation and Industrial collapse in the Soviet regime, its international isolation, the continued threat of counter revolution. Sometimes you have to implement policies because they suit the concrete circumstances rather than the abstract theory. The NEP improved the situation in terms of grain production and feeding the cities, which was its purpose.


** The suppression of the Makhnovists in the Ukraine.



That would be one of my high points.

[piet11111]

The NEP was a retreat and Lenin and the Bolsheviks recognised it as such. You have to place it in the context of starvation and Industrial collapse in the Soviet regime, its international isolation, the continued threat of counter revolution. Sometimes you have to implement policies because they suit the concrete circumstances rather than the abstract theory. The NEP improved the situation in terms of grain production and feeding the cities, which was its purpose.

my issue with the NEP was that it did not go far enough.
the fact it was implemented is proof that lenin realised that his "socialism" did not work.
instead lenin and his succesors never allowed the NEP to expand and by doing so caused near-food shortages for the biggest part of the USSR's existance.
why did they not expand the NEP ? because it would weaken the foundation of their power namely total control of the poeple.

[Cheung Mo]

Shachtmanism wasn't a terrible thing in and of itself: Its more left wing took a neutral line on the Cold War (The democratic socialist "Third Camp) and consider both sides to be equally evil (I consider this position to be more consistent with Shachtman's views, although I understand based on some of his actions why the rightist view also exists.))...The right-wing, on the other hand, was staunchly pro-US and became a social-democratic (In the modern sense of left-social liberals who want to "humanise capitalism rather than in the traditional sense of reformist Marxists who wanted to use existing democratic institutions to build a Marxist society.) feeder system of sorts (Social Democrats USA) for much of the neo-conservative elite that now runs America's foreign policy in consort with multinationals and religious extremists.

Am I being too charitable to Max here?

[LoneRed]

oh, here we go with the fat cat bashing


well what do you expect, these yokels are pure baltic avenue, oh.. im lait for the short line railroad.


dialectics isnt a failure, only looks as it was, as lenin,stalin,mao(especially) used dialectics to justify what they did

[chimx]

October, 1917.

[piet11111]

dialectics isnt a failure, only looks as it was

then could you please point out the somehow overlooked astounding successes of dialectics ?

and perhaps also explain just what dialectics is i always fail to understand it.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:21 PM
October, 1917.
Can you please explain? I mean obvisously you're no bolsehvik fan but surley that date wasnt 'bad' in paticular?

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

The collapse of the USSR, described even by Vladimir Putin as "One of the biggest geopolitical disasters of the 20th century". And the point when so many left-wing people began constantly bashing, criticising and demonising anything and everything to do with the USSR and dialectical materialism. This is exactly what the imperialist western forces wanted.

[Cheung Mo]

It's not their fault that my version of socialism is far more civil libertarian than their's ever was.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Scars+--> (Scars)The Destruction of the Workers Opposition in the Bolshevik Party....[/b]

That is a low point....the lowest point in early post-revolutionary Russian history in my opinion.


Originally posted by Cheung [email protected]
Shachtmanism wasn't a terrible thing in and of itself....

As social-democratic tendencies go....probably not.

However, remember that in the 60's all lefties worth their salt opposed the Vietnam War, where as Shachtman and his disciples supported the continuation of the War....among other things, they supported Henry Martin "Scoop" Jackson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson) Presidential bid. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/wuerg/vomit-smiley-023.gif

You can't get much lower than supporting the ruthless pillaging and murder of your own ruling class in a tiny third world country.

Of course, if Shachtman isn't bad enough for you, then Lyndon LaRouche, a former member of the SWP, should be bad enough for you....I mean having the most mad bastard in American politics come from the "Marxist tradition" is pretty fucking embarrassing.


Cheung Mo
Am I being too charitable to Max here?

I think the older Shachtman was far more to the right than your brief summary suggests....if he'd lived another ten years, I wouldn't have been surprised if he had drifted into outright fascism.

That course certainly seems to be a plausible political trajectory to me.

[Janus]

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has to be up there.

The loss of power by the soviets and the suppression of the Krondstadt rebellion.

Also, the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia even though they really weren't communists.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:00 AM


the suppression of the Krondstadt rebellion.


I shot the White Guard at Kronstadt. :lol:

[Cheung Mo]

That Larouche is a mentally deranged creep who can't decide between fascism and Stalinism is utterly indisputable. He's probably the only person in this world with political views as fucked up as Bobby Fischer's (An anti-American, anti-communist neo-Nazi who thinks highly of Kissinger, Marcos, and Islamism...May he one day find the mental help he needs.).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+--> (Cheung Mo)That Larouche is a mentally deranged creep who can't decide between fascism and Stalinism is utterly indisputable.[/b]

Stalinism is the wrong word here....LaRouche was a Trotskyist in his youth and, as I mentioned, he was also a member of several Trotskyist based organisations.

Strangely enough, there seem to have been quite a few Trotskyists who received their training in the 60's "Trotskyist circles", who are now as hawkish as they get....a few of the Neo-Conservatives, Christopher Hitchens, LaRouche and so on. Indeed there's probably a few I haven't heard of.

But what's more curious, is that I'm not aware of the same type of thing happening with regards the other branches of Leninism....though I think, and don't quote me on this, that a former Orthodox Leninist was part of the Berlesconi Government! :o

It seems to me that during the 50's and 60's, the entrism into social-democratic parties and the lines promoted which all seemed to point to Russia being the "ultimate evil" caused havoc with regards the ideological direction that young Trotskyists from the 60's ended up taking....though that they were mostly petty-bourgeois windbags also says a lot. :lol:

Trotsky also seems to have had limited influence on the thinking of the ruling class in some respects....Tony Blair has praised him in the past. And despite my disdain for Trotskyism, in most cases Trotsky's original positions have become very distorted and taken out of context.

Marx's critics rarely seem to read him....and Trotsky's "ruling class fans" don't seem bother to understand him. :lol:


Cheung Mo
Bobby Fischer

I have no idea who he is....and the wikipedia search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer) says Bobby Fischer is a chess player.

Is that the guy your on about?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:21 PM
October, 1917.
Ending the war, seizing foodstuffs to save workers from starvation and smashing the rich bastards is in your eyes the low point of communism? :huh:

[chimx]

it was all downhill after that month.

[Scars]

Originally posted by REPOMAN+Apr 15 2006, 04:37 AM--> (REPOMAN @ Apr 15 2006, 04:37 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 07:21 PM
October, 1917.
Ending the war, seizing foodstuffs to save workers from starvation and smashing the rich bastards is in your eyes the low point of communism? :huh: [/b]
By 'seizing foodstuffs' I presume you mean 'seizing foodstuffs from teh peasants and taking it to the cities leaving the peasants to starve', becuase that's a far more accurate description of what happened. The Peasants, 80% of Russia's population, suffered greatly from the October Revolution.

[JC1]

By 'seizing foodstuffs' I presume you mean 'seizing foodstuffs from teh peasants and taking it to the cities leaving the peasants to starve', becuase that's a far more accurate description of what happened. The Peasants, 80% of Russia's population, suffered greatly from the October Revolution.

That becuase it was a workers reveloution.

Fuck the peaseantry. Fuck em all.

[Ian]

I haven't seen anyone say anything about the crushing of the Paris commune, that was surely a low point for the fledgling international communist movement

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:49 AM

By 'seizing foodstuffs' I presume you mean 'seizing foodstuffs from teh peasants and taking it to the cities leaving the peasants to starve', becuase that's a far more accurate description of what happened. The Peasants, 80% of Russia's population, suffered greatly from the October Revolution.

That becuase it was a workers reveloution.

Fuck the peaseantry. Fuck em all.
Because peasants aren't workers? In Russia at that the overwhelming majority of peasants did not own any means of production, they did not own any land and they were not labouring for their own benefit, they got a small percentage of what was made from their labours- much like factory workers. They're a fuckload more working class than Vladimir 'middle-class-lawyer' Lenin.

Besides, you can't ignore 80% of a country and claim that you're a popular, democratic or, least of all, mass movement.

As for 'fuck the peasantry', well, do you like food? I like food. I like to eat a couple of times a day, generally once in the middle of the day and once at night. I'll also have a bit of bread or a piece of fruit in the morning. I'm going to assume that you like food to, as you're not a Taoist (as far as I know) and you're not a robot (also as far as I know) and thus the peasantry and rural workers in general and PRETTY FUCKING IMPORTANT as they are responsible for the primary cultivation of ALL food. Sure twinkies may be made in cities, but the flour, sugar, milk and god knows what else is in a twinkie due as hell is not from any city.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:49 AM

By 'seizing foodstuffs' I presume you mean 'seizing foodstuffs from teh peasants and taking it to the cities leaving the peasants to starve', becuase that's a far more accurate description of what happened. The Peasants, 80% of Russia's population, suffered greatly from the October Revolution.

That becuase it was a workers reveloution.

Fuck the peaseantry. Fuck em all.
http://www.laexotique.com/Thumbnails/forum6/lolerskates.gif

[Horatii]

Ending the war, seizing foodstuffs to save workers from starvation and smashing the rich bastards is in your eyes the low point of communism?

Pathetic. You might have to try a little harder with your Stalinist bullshit next time.

I'd say the resounding failures of...just about every "Marxist-Leninst" or "Maoist" revolution ever speak for themselves. This might just rest on...you know, the failed theory of dialectical materialism?

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:35 AM
Pathetic. You might have to try a little harder with your Stalinist bullshit next time.

I'd say the resounding failures of...just about every "Marxist-Leninst" or "Maoist" revolution ever speak for themselves. This might just rest on...you know, the failed theory of dialectical materialism?
Haha! As soon as somebody points out an obvious historical fact and puts a word in edgeways that isn't yet another swipe at the USSR, he is branded a 'Stalinist'.

If the "Marxist-Leninist" revolutions are failures, god knows what trotskyist ones are...oh sorry, none have actually occurred have they? There. They can't even speak for themselves.

Becasue all the trots can ever do is to sit back and lament at how they feel 'betrayed' by this or that leader ot this or that revolution, and never lift a fucking finger to help, or even come up with any better suggestions!

[YKTMX]

Marx's critics rarely seem to read him....and Trotsky's "ruling class fans" don't seem bother to understand him.

You seem to be missing the rather obvious points that if you were a "fan of Trotsky" you must also have been a fan of Marx.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:35 AM

Ending the war, seizing foodstuffs to save workers from starvation and smashing the rich bastards is in your eyes the low point of communism?

Pathetic. You might have to try a little harder with your Stalinist bullshit next time.

I'd say the resounding failures of...just about every "Marxist-Leninst" or "Maoist" revolution ever speak for themselves. This might just rest on...you know, the failed theory of dialectical materialism?
Well leaving aside that I'm not even a Bolshevik, let alone a Stalinist, :lol: what I said wasn't bullshit. (Besides which that wouldn't make me any more less correct or incorrect; attacking a person for being a 'Stalinist' is just an ad hominem.) The Bolshevik slogan was 'peace and bread' and after overthrowing the provisional government, they did end the war, they did seize stores of grain that were held by the rich to feed workers. Those are facts. That I disagree with some aspecs of Leninist theory doesn't make it impossible for me to recognise when they did something positive.

[Horatii]

The Bolshevik slogan was 'peace and bread' and after overthrowing the provisional government, they did end the war, they did seize stores of grain that were held by the rich to feed workers. Those are facts. That I disagree with some aspecs of Leninist theory doesn't make it impossible for me to recognise when they did something positive.

Yes, if you mean abandoning the revolution to petty bourgoise economic policy, then yes, they did something positive.


If the "Marxist-Leninist" revolutions are failures, god knows what trotskyist ones are...oh sorry, none have actually occurred have they? There. They can't even speak for themselves.

Becasue all the trots can ever do is to sit back and lament at how they feel 'betrayed' by this or that leader ot this or that revolution, and never lift a fucking finger to help, or even come up with any better suggestions!

The only thing worse than a Marxist-Leninist revolution is a Trostkyist one.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:24 PM

Marx's critics rarely seem to read him....and Trotsky's "ruling class fans" don't seem bother to understand him.

You seem to be missing the rather obvious points that if you were a "fan of Trotsky" you must also have been a fan of Marx.

Not necessarily.

Tony Blair, among others, is a fan of works such as The Revolution Betrayed and generally works critical of Stalin....which means that Trotsky's "ruling class fans" don't read Marx, they just want to read stuff that makes Stalin look bad.

And whilst Trotsky did try and make Stalin look bad, he did it for reasons that these "fans" seem not to understand.

In other words, Trotsky's not read by these people because of his analyses, but rather because he didn't like Stalin....which means you can be a "fan" of that, and not be a "fan" of Marx.

A lot of Marx's critics on the other hand that I've read, don't see to have read Marx at all....they just attack strawmen.

[black magick hustla]

The day Bolshevism won over revolutionary theory.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:20 PM

The Bolshevik slogan was 'peace and bread' and after overthrowing the provisional government, they did end the war, they did seize stores of grain that were held by the rich to feed workers. Those are facts. That I disagree with some aspecs of Leninist theory doesn't make it impossible for me to recognise when they did something positive.

Yes, if you mean abandoning the revolution to petty bourgoise economic policy, then yes, they did something positive.


If the "Marxist-Leninist" revolutions are failures, god knows what trotskyist ones are...oh sorry, none have actually occurred have they? There. They can't even speak for themselves.

Becasue all the trots can ever do is to sit back and lament at how they feel 'betrayed' by this or that leader ot this or that revolution, and never lift a fucking finger to help, or even come up with any better suggestions!

The only thing worse than a Marxist-Leninist revolution is a Trostkyist one.
The October Revolution was not a compromise with bourgeois economic policy. That occured several years later, after the purge of the Workers' Opposition and the NEP. It was largely a result of lacking trained technicians and such an underdeveloped, illiterate working class.

And there never has been a Trotskyist revolution. The biggest critique of Trotskyism is that they don't do revolutions, just criticise them.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Apr 13 2006, 09:33 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Apr 13 2006, 09:33 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
What the hell is wrong with rebuilding cathedrals and churches?

The Nazi War Machine flattened whole cities....don't you think it would have made more sense to rebuild homes rather than monuments to superstition?

Indeed, the renovation of old buildings is very labour intensive, so the superstitious can do that if they want....the employees of the Russia State should not show any support for Religion.

And aside from that, Architecturally speaking, Cathedrals are shit....steel-framed buildings are the way to go.


Mesijs
Communism isn't about crushing someone's beliefs.

I imagine people who promote bourgeois liberalism and fascism will flourish in a post-revolutionary society. :lol:

Just some advice here, don't conflate post-modernism with communism....they just don't go together.

And by the way, I'm offended that you tried to "crush" my "belief" that the Russian CP shouldn't have rebuilt Catholic Cathedrals. :lol: [/b]
Homes is more important. That doesn't mean churces shouldn't be rebuilded.

Right, the Russian's shouldn't support religion. Why not? If people want to believe, let them do so.

And your opinion about architecture is not important. It's about what the people want.

So you are anti-democratic. Good to know. Then you're not a communist.

[321zero]

And there never has been a Trotskyist revolution.

October was a 'Trotskyist' revolution. :P

[321zero]

Oh, and the lowest point would be the SPD voting for war in 1914.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:10 PM
Homes is more important. That doesn't mean churces shouldn't be rebuilded.

Right, the Russian's shouldn't support religion. Why not? If people want to believe, let them do so.

And your opinion about architecture is not important. It's about what the people want.
Why exactly should a workers' government be expected to prop up tools of reaction?

Anyway, low points? A tough question, there were many.

-The crushing of the Paris Commune(not really Marxism, I guess).

-Stalin allowing Trotsky to leave the USSR and write stuff, instead of ice-picking him straight away.

-Krushchev's Secret Speech, peaceful coexistance, capitalist reforms, et cetera.

-The dissolution of the USSR, Warsaw Pact, etc.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Mesijs+--> (Mesijs)That doesn't mean churces shouldn't be rebuilded.[/b]

Then let the superstitious do it if that's what they want....and have the Vatican fund it.

Do you really think that Construction Workers' should have to rebuild monuments to ignorance just because some backward twits want them? After all, in a communist society one would work for pleasure, and I certainly wouldn't find it pleasurable rebuilding Cathedrals and neither do I imagine the vast majority of Construction Workers would.

So really, you would like to see Construction Workers' forced to rebuild these butt-ugly buildiungs....if I borrow a phrase from yourself, "you're not a communist".


Originally posted by Mesijs+--> (Mesijs)Right, the Russian's shouldn't support religion. Why not?[/b]

Are you completely unaware of the history of Organised Religion?

Here are a few recent examples....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292051377 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48710&view=findpost&p=1292051377)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292045108 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48138&view=findpost&p=1292045108)

A few centuries ago, things were worse! :o

Religion, has no place in civilised society....it is in fact, an affront to human dignity.


[email protected]
And your opinion about architecture is not important.

Well "my opinion" is less and opinion, and more an objective fact....centuries old buildings do tend to be architecturally poor and therefore, they require lots of maintenance.

This is all very labour intensive, and therefore, just knocking down the buildings and building new structures, preferably ones with some use, would be the desirable option.


Mesijs
So you are anti-democratic.

If the majority is wrong, then I do oppose their opinion....after all, the majority don't want communism at the moment, but that doesn't mean I am just gong to abandon the communist project.

And additionally, if I was required to rebuild Cathedrals, then I would exercise my sovereign right to say fuck off and do it yourself! :lol:

[Horatii]

So you are anti-democratic. Good to know. Then you're not a communist.

I thought his user name said it all?

[Andy Bowden]

-Stalin allowing Trotsky to leave the USSR and write stuff, instead of ice-picking him straight away.

Why not let him write? Id the ideas of Stalin supporting Communists are so strong, why would they need to kill a dissident? If he had no support, then what threat was he?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Matthijs+Apr 16 2006, 08:43 PM--> (Matthijs @ Apr 16 2006, 08:43 PM) -Stalin allowing Trotsky to leave the USSR and write stuff, instead of ice-picking him straight away. [/b]
Hahaha. Haha. Ha?

Right well I think the lowest point of Revolutionary Marxism would have to be Hungarian Revolution, when it was ruthlessly surpressed by the Soviets.


Armchair [email protected] Apr 16 2006, 09:00 PM
Religion, has no place in civilised society....it is in fact, an affront to human dignity.
That is just bullshit. Under any rational and libertarian society, people should be allowed to believe what they want. Believing what might have caused things is not an "affront to human dignity", but rather an example of human dignity in and of itself in that we question such things. Organized religion has a lot of flaws, certainly, but they perform a lot of charity too, and besides which none of this takes into account personal faith which doesn't necessarily effect anyone.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Horatii+--> (Horatii)I thought his user name said it all?[/b]

Instead of just poking your nose into a debate and, instead of actually partaking in that debate, making a sly comment, why don't you actually respond to some of the arguments raised in said debate?

For a start, you can reply to my response to the racist claptrap you were spouting in a thread in Discrimination....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292052619 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48773&view=findpost&p=1292052619)

Okay?


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+--> (Fistful of Steel)Under any rational and libertarian society, people should be allowed to believe what they want.[/b]

A society, if it is going to be run rationally and democratically by its populace, cannot have room for belief....rather, it must consist of rational actors who make rational choices.

Your scenario, would effectively allow for a society run by nutballs....and historical record shows, that if a civilised society needs anything, it is members of that society who rely on rationality and not belief.

Additionally, a society plagued by Religion simply can't be "libertarian"....the Religious will try to impose their "morality" on the rest of us, and I for one, don't find anything "libertarian" in any of the major Religions.

If you think that your personal liberty will not be affected by Religious people having a say in how a society functions, then I suggest you do some brief reading on what societies plagued by superstition have been like....you may wish to start with feudal France and the actions of the Vatican to get some kind of idea of what happens when Religion represents a major social force.


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
Believing what might have caused things is not an "affront to human dignity"....

Well, when we know exactly what "caused things"....then disregarding the achievements of the human species in favour of "belief", is, in my opinion, "an affront to human dignity".

When humans have progressed to the levels of advancement that we see in todays world, keeping the illusions of a 15th century Peasant really does, to borrow a phrase, spit in the face of human achievement.

On top of that, and this is without a doubt the worse thing about Religion, Religious parents ruthlessly indoctrinate their children with that nonsense....they hinder the development of these children and, with regards girls, they often help to perpetuate the oppression of women by providing a Religious rationale for it.

As I said, there is no room for stuff like this in a civilised society.


Fistful of [email protected]
Organized religion has a lot of flaws, certainly, but they perform a lot of charity too....

Yeah, the Vatican's "charity work" in Africa is "really great". :angry:

Religious charity, like most other charity, always has a price....and it just happens that the proverbial price of Religious charity is often particularly horrendous.


Fistful of Steel
....and besides which none of this takes into account personal faith which doesn't necessarily effect anyone.

If the Religious could keep their faith "personal"....in other words, they didn't mention it nor did they try and "convert" others. Then, and only then, could we possibly live with Religion in a civilised society.

But, the Religious rarely keep their faith to themselves. After all, it's their "Godly duty" to try "convert" non-believers....and the methods range from gentle persuasion, to torture and execution. :o

[Horatii]

A society, if it is going to be run rationally and democratically by its populace, cannot have room for belief....rather, it must consist of rational actors who make rational choices.

Herein lies your flaw. Rationality tells me that eliminating all mentally handicapped people will save our government countless dollars. HOWEVER, since I believe murder to be immoral....(draw religious conclusions here)



On top of that, and this is without a doubt the worse thing about Religion, Religious parents ruthlessly indoctrinate their children with that nonsense....they hinder the development of these children and, with regards girls, they often help to perpetuate the oppression of women by providing a Religious rationale for it.

Holy fuck. I feel like I'm talking to the left-wing version of Bill fucking intolerance O'Reilly. No, this "indocrination" as you so elequently put is NOT ruthless. In your "Communist Utopia" you'd indoctrinate your citizens with what...Marxism? How are you not as intolerant as they are? Fucking double standard out the ass here.

Go watch fox news.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Horatii+--> (Horatii)Rationality tells me that eliminating all mentally handicapped people will save our government countless dollars. HOWEVER, since I believe murder to be immoral....(draw religious conclusions here)[/b]

You don't need "morality" to come to the conclusion that murder is harmful. Rather, simple logic will tell you that in most cases murder is objectively harmful to a society functioning....hence why almost every society outlaws murder.

Rationally, you can say that high rates of murder is going to make said society less pleasurable and if will also significantly hinder how well that society functions....there is no need for morality in this.

Especially when you consider that a moral position against murder would lead to a universal value that is made abstract...."all murder is bad".

Well, no....all murder is not bad.

The execution of a rapist can be shown to objectively benefit a society by reducing the number of people who are capable of harming said society.

Likewise, in a post-revolutionary society, the execution of infamous reactionaries can be rationally shown to objectively benefit that society....the counter-revolutionaries will pose a significant threat to a post-revolutionary society, and should they act on that threat, from a rational perspective, action needs to be taken.

Similarly, the murder of Imperialist forces by anti-Imperialist forces is an objectively beneficial thing....it is not "bad" or "unjustified", it is a rationally justified action because those particular murders, can be shown to objectively benefit society.

Granted, most murder results in harmful consequences to society as a whole. But, and this is a but that drives a stake through the heart of morality, there are cases where murder is beneficial to society.

You can't therefore, say that "all murder is bad"....rather you must decide whether each murder is "good" or "bad" based on the individual merits of that particular murder.

So, with you example, we must analyse that rationally.

Suppose we're living in a communist society, and suppose it is discovered that the mentally ill are providing a massive drain on the resources of that society....how would we decide what to do?

Well to start with, the option you mentioned, elimination, has to be considered on its merits.

To start with, we have no state apparatus we can use to kill these people, we additionally have no monetary incentive to use to hire executioners....so we are therefore, required to rely on the general public to execute numerous civilians.

No what is needed to get people to carry out a mass genocide?

Well, a monetary incentive helps....but we ain't got that, this is communism remember.

So, what else do we need? A rationale of course.

Now, do you think in a free, democratic and rational society that a rationale for mass genocide can be created?

There'll be people who oppose this rationale right? Lots of people I imagine.

So, how, without any monetary incentive or class structure are you going to manage to create a widescale rationale that actually wins support for mass genocide?

You're going to have to re-create class relations....and from a rational perspective, the members of society will oppose this because the material results of this will be objectively harmful.

So the extermination option is "off the table".

So now, we have to try and rationally decide how the problem can be solved. There are numerous possible ways to solve this, but suppose we pick one....medical technology.

Lets say that Medicine is now at a level that means that allows for effective scans of foetuses which will detect, even better than now, whether that foetus is going to be mentally deficient.

So, we try to make this technology more widespread in order that more women can access it during pregnancy and therefore abort foetuses that are going to be born with deficiencies.

That's one way to address the problem....and as I said, there are likely numerous possible solutions.

And additionally, this is all working on the assumption that communist society which requires an abundance to function, has some form of shortage....otherwise the question of supporting mentally disabled people won't even come up.

Such a shortage, in the unlikely event that it happens, will likely require the transition to class society....so the problems will be far more worrying than figuring out how to deal with the mentally disabled.


Originally posted by Horatii+--> (Horatii)No, this "indocrination" as you so elequently put is NOT ruthless.[/b]

You think young Muslim girls that are "taught" that they should "cover up" to avoid "sin" are not being ruthlessly indoctrinated by their parents? :blink:

These girls, are being psychologically oppressed by their parents in order to accept subjugation....that's child abuse.

And this kind of ruthless practice by the way, isn't a "Muslim thing"....all major (and most minor) Religions wish for their followers to raise children that are subjugated to ignorance and oppression.

When a young teenage girl from an Evangelical family in Texas is "taught" that abortion will result in her going to "Hell"....her parents are, without a doubt, ruthlessly tormenting this young girl and needlessly indoctrinating her with harmful nonsense.

Whether the Religious choose to "convert" people psychologically or physically, they almost always do so in a ruthless manner that has no place in a civilised society.


Originally posted by Horatii
your "Communist Utopia" you'd indoctrinate your citizens with what...Marxism?

Well, in a communist society they wouldn't be "my citizens"....they'd be individual rational actors that are free to act as they wish so long as their actions do not cause objective harm to other members of society.

They can choose to read Marx if they wish....or they could choose to read Plato if that is what they desired.

There would be no way to indoctrinate anyone....the power relations required just wouldn't exist.

At the very most, people would be freely convinced, by people who could form convincing arguments, to read this or that author....they wouldn't be forced, and it wouldn't be mandatory.


[email protected]
How are you not as intolerant as they are?

I don't know about you, but I've never claimed that "tolerance" was one of my "virtues".

I strongly support what I like....and I ruthlessly oppose what I don't like.

We all, as it happens, have limits on what we are willing to tolerate....and I just don't wish to a lot of the shit history has chosen to inflict upon the present inhabitants of the Earth.

Marx didn't tolerate shit ideas either....and if my levels of intolerance can reach his, then that is at least, one way in which I can match that towering figure. And something I am more than willing to do! :D


Horatii
Go watch fox news.

Conservatives at least, are more honest with regards their political positions when compared with liberals like yourself. Post-modernism is just, well....so shit! :lol:

[Horatii]

Foward: Bolding every other word doesn't make you look intelligent.


Whether the Religious choose to "convert" people psychologically or physically, they almost always do so in a ruthless manner that has no place in a civilised society.

Neither does "revolutionary" Maoism (an inherently reactionary, militant ideology), but they're not banning it, are they.



I don't know about you, but I've never claimed that "tolerance" was one of my "virtues".


I strongly support what I like....and I ruthlessly oppose what I don't like.

We all, as it happens, have limits on what we are willing to tolerate....and I just don't wish to a lot of the shit history has chosen to inflict upon the present inhabitants of the Earth.

Marx didn't tolerate shit ideas either....and if my levels of intolerance can reach his, then that is at least, one way in which I can match that towering figure. And something I am more than willing to do!

Odd, so how are you any different than fundementalist christians or muslims? Not at all. You're all extremely intolerant and narrowminded, and your "path" is always the right one. I think you might want to offer...something a little better than that if you wish to have a "revolution" of sorts.



You don't need "morality" to come to the conclusion that murder is harmful. Rather, simple logic will tell you that in most cases murder is objectively harmful to a society functioning....hence why almost every society outlaws murder.


So is smoking, and it's not outlawed. Your point?


When a young teenage girl from an Evangelical family in Texas is "taught" that abortion will result in her going to "Hell"....her parents are, without a doubt, ruthlessly tormenting this young girl and needlessly indoctrinating her with harmful nonsense.

I think ruthlessly tormenting would fall under "Abu Gahrib" or something of the sorts. Conversely, intolerance is an issue that needs to be dealt with, unfortunately, you're offering the same shit they are.


Whether the Religious choose to "convert" people psychologically or physically, they almost always do so in a ruthless manner that has no place in a civilised society.

Are you talking about the middle east? Because I sure as fuck am not under the pain of death to convert to any religion where I live (Canada).


There would be no way to indoctrinate anyone....the power relations required just wouldn't exist

Under a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" they would, yes. Dictatorship is commonly called "tyranny of the majority" in Capitalist terms!


.or they could choose to read Plato if that is what they desired

Yes, so they could read Aristotle, come to the conclusion that an Oligarchy is the most sensible form of government, then what? They'd be "re-educated?"


Conservatives at least, are more honest with regards their political positions when compared with liberals like yourself. Post-modernism is just, well....so shit!

I 100% agree, post-modernism couple with liberalism is a disease. HOWEVER, oppression and intolerance have NEVER benefited society in a positive way. I don't for a moment claim to front liberalism, but I cannot advocate extreme intolerance of others beliefs or culture.



Marx didn't tolerate shit ideas either....and if my levels of intolerance can reach his, then that is at least, one way in which I can match that towering figure. And something I am more than willing to do!

Terrifying. You might want to join the MAOISTS in Nepal and dole out headshots in a back alley. Have fun with your "revolution."

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'd kill for your right to say it."

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:13 AM
Foward: Bolding every other word doesn't make you look intelligent.


True. But in this case, he definitely looks more intelligent than you bolding no words at all. He's part of the RS-AS-LSD bloc that constantly bolds words. ;) I've gotten used to it, although I must say I do love people who try to copy their style, but fail miserably, because they don't bold certain words for emphasis, they literally bold every other word. :lol:


Neither does "revolutionary" Maoism (an inherently reactionary, militant ideology), but they're not banning it, are they.
Inherently reactionary? :lol: Please, do try to back this up, it'll be a good laugh. Also, what's wrong with militancy? You're confusing it with militarism, which is indeed negative.


Odd, so how are you any different than fundementalist christians or muslims? Not at all. You're all extremely intolerant and narrowminded, and your "path" is always the right one. I think you might want to offer...something a little better than that if you wish to have a "revolution" of sorts.
AS is different in that he is progressive, on the side of the working class, etc. At least read some basics on class struggle, man. You come across like you don't know shit, because you're trying to argue as if this is some "liberal vs conservative" debate.


So is smoking, and it's not outlawed. Your point?
Smoking may not be allowed, but they're definitely giving us a hard time in doing so. :angry: Besides, smoking a ciggy is quite a bit different from putting a gun against someone's head and pulling the trigger.


I think ruthlessly tormenting would fall under "Abu Gahrib" or something of the sorts. Conversely, intolerance is an issue that needs to be dealt with, unfortunately, you're offering the same shit they are.
There is more to torture than just physical torment and sexual abuse. Anyway, do tell, how would you deal with intolerance? How would you maintain their "freedom of religion" while preventing them from teaching their children to sleep with their hands above the sheets, lest they start touching themselves?


Are you talking about the middle east? Because I sure as fuck am not under the pain of death to convert to any religion where I live (Canada).
It doesn't take a Middle Eastern country to have such circumstances. By the way, don't make a strawman of AS's argument. You're making it look as if he said that all religionists force people to convert at gunpoint. The fact is that "conversion" is done in a ruthless manner in many places.

Or at least, I don't think children have much of a choice in the matter when they're brought up that way. Or parents who move to some heavily fundie town: if they don't send their kids to the christian indoctrination camp(AKA school), then where'll they go? If they aren't popping out any babies, Mr Pastor will come for a visit to ask for an explanation. If they don't join the church, who will want anything to do with them?


Terrifying. You might want to join the MAOISTS in Nepal and dole out headshots in a back alley. Have fun with your "revolution."
Excellent idea. Will you pay for my Nepali lessons and my airplane ticket?


"I may not agree with what you say, but I'd kill for your right to say it."
Slightly misquoted. But it doesn't matter. Just because someone once said that, does not make it true.

[Horatii]

There is more to torture than just physical torment and sexual abuse. Anyway, do tell, how would you deal with intolerance? How would you maintain their "freedom of religion" while preventing them from teaching their children to sleep with their hands above the sheets, lest they start touching themselves?

Sure as fuck wouldn't be dolling out headshots.


Inherently reactionary? Please, do try to back this up, it'll be a good laugh. Also, what's wrong with militancy? You're confusing it with militarism, which is indeed negative.

What the fuck do you think? It's fuedalism except that A) Your fuedal "lord" is the Local party boss B) Your Monarch is a maniacal dictator.



AS is different in that he is progressive, on the side of the working class, etc. At least read some basics on class struggle, man. You come across like you don't know shit, because you're trying to argue as if this is some "liberal vs conservative" debate.

Class struggle in Industriall Revolution England is just a LITTLE bit different than now. Unfortunately, you're all too reactionary to modernize Marx's ideas.



Smoking may not be allowed, but they're definitely giving us a hard time in doing so. Besides, smoking a ciggy is quite a bit different from putting a gun against someone's head and pulling the trigger.

I'm sorry that you feel oppressed. Are they really different? They both cause physical harm. Who's to differentiate between levels of physical pain? The party boss?



Or at least, I don't think children have much of a choice in the matter when they're brought up that way. Or parents who move to some heavily fundie town: if they don't send their kids to the christian indoctrination camp(AKA school), then where'll they go? If they aren't popping out any babies, Mr Pastor will come for a visit to ask for an explanation. If they don't join the church, who will want anything to do with them?

Kind of like when children are brought up under Socialism/ Fascism/ Capitalism. It's all indoctrination, just wether or not you view your indoctrination as more "Noble" than other forms.


Slightly misquoted. But it doesn't matter. Just because someone once said that, does not make it true.

Er...Did you just hit your head? I never claimed this to be some universal truth, It's a philosophical viewpoint.


Excellent idea. Will you pay for my Nepali lessons and my airplane ticket?

You might want to put your Che Guevara mug down and snap back to reality. Headshotting isn't solving any of the Class issues across the world, and conversely. neither is complacency.


It doesn't take a Middle Eastern country to have such circumstances. By the way, don't make a strawman of AS's argument. You're making it look as if he said that all religionists force people to convert at gunpoint. The fact is that "conversion" is done in a ruthless manner in many places.

Yes it is, and the West is NOT one of those "places."

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 16 2006, 09:37 PM

-Stalin allowing Trotsky to leave the USSR and write stuff, instead of ice-picking him straight away.

Why not let him write? Id the ideas of Stalin supporting Communists are so strong, why would they need to kill a dissident? If he had no support, then what threat was he?
He never said anything about Trotsky not having any support. Capitalists can get support, and it's not that we consider them to be the 'good guys'...
His writing took away support from the pro-soviet-side to the pro-imperialist side, the irony is, relatively phew of the trots know this.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Apr 16 2006, 11:18 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Apr 16 2006, 11:18 PM)
Fistful of Steel
Under any rational and libertarian society, people should be allowed to believe what they want.

A society, if it is going to be run rationally and democratically by its populace, cannot have room for belief....rather, it must consist of rational actors who make rational choices. [/b]
I can see that religion wouldn't have any power in a communist society, would be prevented from owning property, building churches, etc, but he's right that a communist society wouldn't force people not to believe if they wanted to. That wouldn't work.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Matthijs+--> (Matthijs)He's part of the RS-AS-LSD bloc that constantly bolds words. ;) [/b]

You know why we do that right? It's cause we're infantile ultra-leftists and because of this we have spasms which make us hit Alt+b....it's a hard life! :( :lol:


Originally posted by Horatii+--> (Horatii)Neither does "revolutionary" Maoism (an inherently reactionary, militant ideology), but they're not banning it, are they.[/b]

Reactionary where and to whom?

Was "Maoism" reactionary in 1949? If it was, then the Jacobin's or the petty-bourgeois democrats must of been reactionary in 1789 and 1849 respectively....which I don't think anyone would claim.

You see, you can't just label something "reactionary"....rather you must provide a rational and logical argument outlining why in this specific time, this specific paradigm is "reactionary" or "progressive".

Now, at this moment in time, there are a few places where Maoism is having a significant impact as a progressive force....Nepal and possibly India.

In Nepal specifically, Maoism is a force for progression when compared with the Monarchy....in two centuries from now, Maoism may well be a force of reaction and some other paradigm will present itself as the paradigm of progression.

But really, you have to analyse these things instead of just pasting labels on them....and besides there's no reason to have revolutionary in quotations and I don't know what your problem is with militancy.

As for the question of "banning it", well you see, I don't know what your point is here.

I'm not suggesting we "ban" Religion, rather I advocate that parents shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate their children and that public life should be completely secular....that's not a ban on Religion per se, it's just a restriction on "Freedom of Religion".

Now, everyone with any sense would agree that "Freedom of Religion" cannot be "universal"....we agree with bans on genital mutilation, witch burning, inquisition and so on.

So, all we are discussing here is how far we as a society need to go in order to eliminate the objectively harmful things that go under the banner of Religion....and make no mistake, a civilised society must restrict "Religious Freedom".

Alternatively, if your point was that Maoism is "as" harmful as Religion and yet it isn't banned, then I suggest learn some history on a couple of levels.

Firstly, Religion has centuries of brutality that you can add to its "criminal record"....so in that sense, any atrocities that you choose to label "Maoist" can't really be compared.

And secondly, if your point is that the ruling class doesn't ban Maoism when it threatens them as a revolutionary paradigm that is chosen by a revolutionary populace, then again, I suspect your knowledge of history is woefully lacking.

During the Civil Rights movement, when the Black Panthers were "inspired" by the Maoist paradigm, the American ruling class did launch a campaign against leftist paradigms, including Maoism....you may have heard of it, it was called COINTELPRO.

And in the other places where Maoist movements has threatened a ruling class, ruling class oppression has been directed towards Maoism....the Nepali Monarchy is hardly asking the Maoists over for crumpets and tea now is he! :lol:

So really, after all this writing, I honestly don't know what you were saying with that sentence.


Originally posted by Horatii
Odd, so how are you any different than fundementalist christians or muslims?

I don't pray! :lol:

Though, you're right in a sense....I don't tolerate a lot of stuff, just like the "fundies". The difference is that we have different tolerances.

The "fundies" wish to oppress women, homosexuals and so on, I wish to oppress the "fundies". :lol:

The time in which their barbarism had a place in human society is gone....and therefore I wish to make sure that it is gotten rid of forever.


Originally posted by Horatii
So is smoking, and it's not outlawed.

Smoking is banned in many public spaces in various countries....England, Cuba, America, and so on. And, as it happens, there were recently numerous debates on this subject.

My position is that the harm caused by smoking to others is both over-exaggerated and therefore not enough to warrant action....this means I don't support a ban on smoking.

Indeed, whilst the act of murder or rape can be shown to be directly harmful to the victims, "passive smoking", due to the way in which it is investigated, cannot be said to have the same level of harm....if it has any at all.

If, for instance, a 60 year old non-smoker living in L.A. gets lung cancer....is it "passive smoking" or traffic pollution that has caused this?

At this point in time, we wouldn't be able to tell....and I doubt we ever will be able to tell.

So, in this respect, the rational choice is to allow smoking because we simply can't know for certain whether it is a significant cause of illness, and additionally, denying people the pleasure of smoking, especially if it is virtually harmless to others, would make society as a whole a less pleasurable place.

You see, making rational decisions requires that we not only think about the possible harm or benefit, but that we also rationally decide whether banning something potentially harmful is worthwile given the amount of harm its likely to cause.

After all, we don't ban driving because people die in road accidents....rather, rationally we try to minimise the risks by having things like speed limits and seat-belts.

Moralism requires that we invoke gut reactions and create "universal laws"....rationality requires that we actually think about stuff.

I can see why the first option is more appealing to you. :lol:


Originally posted by Horatii
Conversely, intolerance is an issue that needs to be dealt with, unfortunately, you're offering the same shit they are.

I'd be personally offended if you didn't say I was "intolerant"! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/tiere/animal-smiley-063.gif


Originally posted by Horatii
Are you talking about the middle east? Because I sure as fuck am not under the pain of death to convert to any religion where I live (Canada).

Well Africa and South America are also positively plagued by Religion....and America is getting that way and Poland, Italy and some of the Eastern European countries suffer greatly from Catholic nonsense.

As for Canada, well your lucky....superstion has mostly be gotten rid of where you are, but there are no doubt some pious Christians, Mormons and Jews there who brutally indoctrinate their children with superstitious rubbish.

And then there's this....

Islamic [In]Justice -- On the establishment of an Islamic court in Canada (http://www.maryamnamazie.com/articles/against_sharia_court_in_Canada.html)

You think Canada is too "nice" to have Religion wreak havoc there....well, ask yourself, what are all those Catholics constantly lobbying the Government for? Or the Evangelical Christians?

If Religions is allowed any room in the public sphere....the results are always bad.


Originally posted by Horatii
Under a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" they would, yes.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a many sided coin, and means different things to different communists (and anarchists).

So really, unless you talk about a specific programme that proposes indoctrination, I really can't comment....because unless you show the specifics of a variation of a widely embraced concept, we can't discuss those specifics.

And before you ask, I would oppose compulsory literature for the populace under the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Originally posted by Horatii
Yes, so they could read Aristotle, come to the conclusion that an Oligarchy is the most sensible form of government, then what? They'd be "re-educated?"

No.

Under a free and democratic society they would have the opportunity to present their proposals to the wider populace and argue for the introduction of an Oligarchy.

The populace, as rational actors, would then consider said proposal and likely vote on it....with the proposal either being defeated or accepted.

Your "vision" of communist society, quite frankly, strikes me as something you've found in a bourgeois comic.


Originally posted by Horatii
HOWEVER, oppression and intolerance have NEVER benefited society in a positive way.

So the actions of the sans-culottes army were pointless?

Or the oppression directed towards fascists during World War Two?

Or perhaps societies "oppression" and "intolerance" of rapists and murderers is a "bad thing".

Honestly, history is full of examples where oppression directed against certain groups has benefited society....greatly.


Originally posted by Horatii
....but I cannot advocate extreme intolerance of others beliefs or culture.

So how do you propose we stop genital mutilation? Or honour killings? Or mass genocide?

After all, these things fall under the category of belief and/or culture, yet surely even you would oppose these practices....hopefully "extremely".


Originally posted by Matthijs
AS is different in that he is progressive, on the side of the working class, etc.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-043.gif


Originally posted by Horatii
Unfortunately, you're all too reactionary to modernize Marx's ideas.

If you're an example of "modernity", then I think most people would find that Marx's ideas from a century ago are worth more.

And anyway, that you are ignorant of the development of the Marxist paradigm over the last century, is not my problem....I suggest you actually learn about what you are discussing before you shoot your mouth off.


[email protected]
Yes it is, and the West is NOT one of those "places."

They're not using guns, no....but the Christian fascists really are trying to force society to conform to their "morality".

You think the banning of abortion doesn't coerce people? Or that laws against homosexuals aren't severe infringements on peoples liberty?

If they're not allowed to do it with a gun, the Religious will try and force people to conform via the law....and you it seems, don't care about this. :angry:


REPOMAN
....but he's right that a communist society wouldn't force people not to believe if they wanted to. That wouldn't work.

I'm not arguing that people be "forced" not to believe....just that Religion should be completely removed from the public sphere and that raising children to "believe" should be a form of child abuse.

Real separation of Church and State. :D

[Cult of Reason]

The destruction of the Spanish Revolution by Stalinists was pretty low, if you acknowledge them as being Revolutionary Left.

[Horatii]

The time in which their barbarism had a place in human society is gone....and therefore I wish to make sure that it is gotten rid of forever.

And replace it with...your barbarism?


Was "Maoism" reactionary in 1949? If it was, then the Jacobin's or the petty-bourgeois democrats must of been reactionary in 1789 and 1849 respectively....which I don't think anyone would claim.

The Jacobins were...uneducated.


So really, after all this writing, I honestly don't know what you were saying with that sentence

Fucken eh. We discuss leftist ideology countless times in political science classes, and I haven't once been shot for supporting any of them. Weird eh?


And in the other places where Maoist movements has threatened a ruling class, ruling class oppression has been directed towards Maoism....the Nepali Monarchy is hardly asking the Maoists over for crumpets and tea now is he!

Read my links about the atrocities committed by both sides in that conflict. I wouldn't sit down for crumpets with maoist-indoctrinated ten year old children either.


You think Canada is too "nice" to have Religion wreak havoc there....well, ask yourself, what are all those Catholics constantly lobbying the Government for? Or the Evangelical Christians?

Canada is too "pussy" to deal with this Muslim trash. FYI the evangelicals and catholics RARELY lobby for government policy rather offer up policies to a free vote.


Now, everyone with any sense would agree that "Freedom of Religion" cannot be "universal"....we agree with bans on genital mutilation, witch burning, inquisition and so on.

You might want to get out of the 16th century. If you think that's ruthless, you also might want to move to Nepal.


Was "Maoism" reactionary in 1949?

Yes it was. They restored a monarchy in everything but the name. Collectivized farms and the Great Leap Forward's were just code-words for fuedalism. Fuedal lords were replaced by local party bosses, and the Monarch by Mao. They went from a faux-capitalist society to a Monarchy with left-leaning slogans.


I'm not suggesting we "ban" Religion, rather I advocate that parents shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate their children and that public life should be completely secular....that's not a ban on Religion per se, it's just a restriction on "Freedom of Religion".

So society should indoctrinate children rather than parents? Just trying to see how double sided you are.


I can see why the first option is more appealing to you.

Cute, but you dodged my question.


I'd be personally offended if you didn't say I was "intolerant"!

Cool? Have fun trying to find support in Canada/Western Europe; you'll only find it among the fascists.


And before you ask, I would oppose compulsory literature for the populace under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

That's all I needed to know; variations on faith are irrelevant.


The populace, as rational actors, would then consider said proposal and likely vote on it....with the proposal either being defeated or accepted.

And if it is accepted, then these people are the new "revolutionaries?" and you become "reactionary?"


So the actions of the sans-culottes army were pointless?

France is STILL dealing with the legacy that they created during the revolution.


They're not using guns, no....but the Christian fascists really are trying to force society to conform to their "morality".

Fuck, we're so oppressed; I can't handle it!


You think the banning of abortion doesn't coerce people? Or that laws against homosexuals aren't severe infringements on peoples liberty?

Like which laws? The military one? As example, that only makes logical sense. If you need me to elaborate, I will.

[Gottwald]

South African Communist Party, circa 1910s -- "White workers of the world, unite!"

What would you expect from a minority group? The establishment of groups for cultural autonomy for minority groups are entirely permissable.

This is false information. The South African Communist Party was formed in 1921. Similarly with most other Communist parties, it was formed in the years following the Great October Revolution.

When did the South African Communist Party ever proclaim "White workers of the world unite"? According to the "Great Soviet Encyclopedia", the party initially consisted mainly of white workers that pushed for proletarian liberation. Later in the 1920s, the Party was overwhelmingly black.

I would not be opposed to the creation of a separate Boer state as I support the self-determination of most groups. White proletarianism is just as valid as Kwame Nkrumah's pan-Africanism, Bolivar's pan-Latin Americanism, and Nasser's Pan-Arabism. From Maoism, I've detected a sort of non-white chauvinism that tries to demonise the white race as being composed of undiginifed bourgeois suburbaners when in fact about half of America's white population has got an income of below $50,000.

Anyway, low points for communism include:

-The clumsy Spartacist Uprising led by Luxemburg and Liebknecht
-The failures of the Hungarian Soviet Republic
-The petit-bourgeois Trotskyist and Maoist movements
-USSR's support for the creation of the Zionist Jewish state
-Khrushchev's slanderous denunciation of Comrade Stalin that polarised the Communist movement
-USSR's compliance with America over the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was nothing illegal about deploying weapons of any kind in Cuba and was morally justified given America's invasion in 1961. America was enormously contradictory given that it had deployed nuclear weapons in Turkey.
-Heretical Eurocommunism that no longer called for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
-Perestroika and Glasnost which destroyed our precious worker-peasant state
-The blunderous August 1991 Revolution in USSR

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Horatii+--> (Horatii)And replace it with...your barbarism?[/b]

Nope....the replacement would be a civilised, free and democratic society.

You see, we don't just aim to liberate people from their physical chains, we also aim to liberate people from their psychological chains as well....and a Religious mind is a wasted mind.


Originally posted by Horatii+--> (Horatii)The Jacobins were...uneducated.[/b]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif

Of all the criticisms the French aristocracy levelled against the Jacobin's, I don't think even they would level such a daft criticism....after all, the Jacobin Club compromised some of the finest minds in Revolutionary France.

So I don't know how you've come to this rather peculiar conclusion....care to explain?


Originally posted by Horatii
We discuss leftist ideology countless times in political science classes, and I haven't once been shot for supporting any of them.

And why is that relevant to this discussion we are having here?


Originally posted by Horatii
Read my links about the atrocities committed by both sides in that conflict.

You mean the link you provided to an Amnesty International Report here....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292053200 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48642&view=findpost&p=1292053200)

I just had a browse over it and already this jumped out at me....


Originally posted by Amnesty International
Children killed in the conflict

According to children’s NGOs(1) at least 400 children have died in conflict related violence since 1996. However, with little information available from Nepal’s most remote districts and with many families inhibited from reporting killings due to widespread fear and no hope of justice, the true number of children killed is likely to be far higher.

http://www.amnesty.ca/resource_centre/repo...+Centre+Reports (http://www.amnesty.ca/resource_centre/reports/view.php?load=arcview&article=2650&c=Resource+Centre+Reports)

So they say that information is scarce and, without presenting any further evidence, they say this is because "many families [are] inhibited from reporting killings due to widespread fear".

Now, there likely are unreported killings, but without presenting evidence, on what basis am I going to think that Amnesty Internationals conclusion is valid?

After all, the counter-conclusion, that not many deaths are being reported because they aren't happening, seems just as valid as Amnesty's conclusion....if not more so.

Additionally, reading through I've noticed that virtually all of the Security Forces atrocities are sourced. Where as the atrocities of the CPN (Maoist) atrocities aren't, in the main, sourced at all.

A paragraph is written where they say "we think" or "it is estimated"....but nothing is sourced. Why?

They point to a few individual cases, they don't even source their stories here most of the time, and then they seem to apply those cases as evidence of wider events without citing anything that would back this up.

Take your claim of "maoist-indoctrinated ten year old children", I assume it comes from the section entitled Child abduction and recruitment. Now only one source is cited in that section....source 22 which is a statute from the International Criminal Court!

So in a section which has accusations of child abduction and widespread use of children in military operations, no sources are cited and, as Amnesty says, the evidence is "anecdotal".

Just look at the beginning of that section....


Originally posted by Amnesty International
Child abduction and recruitment

It is estimated that since the beginning of the conflict the CPN (Maoist) have abducted tens of thousands of school children, along with their teachers, for "political education" sessions. Typically, CPN (Maoist) cadres enter a high school and force all the students and teachers to accompany them to a remote location where hundreds of children from across the area are forcibly gathered for these sessions.

Okay, so they've stated that "tens of thousands of school children" have been abducted, and this is based on an estimate....but there's no mention of who's estimate it is or a citation to a source which has made this estimate.

How am I supposed to judge whether this is a credible assessment of the situation?

After all, someone who wished to judge the credibility of a document, would not only check whether the document itself is sourced, but they'd also check the credibility of the individual sources used in said document....Amnesty International doesn't even go as far as to source its claims, never mind actually providing credible sources.

So, quite frankly, that Report doesn't seem a very good Report as far as I'm concerned.

But suppose the accusations that children are being specifically targeted and murdered, that children are being abducted on mass and that child fighters are being used, are true....what does this mean?

Well, first of all, we need to consider that this is a peasant revolution....and revolutions don't tend to be "pretty" things at the best of times, never mind when you've got a bunch of angry peasants running around with guns and bombs.

So we can expect this to be bloody, and given that it's a revolution, we can also reasonably assume that there are a lot of pissed off people who won't be happy until the King is gone.

So, as far as I can see, we have two choices that are practical.

1) We support the Maoists and hope that they succeed....as quickly as possible.

2) We support the Monarchy and also support the possibility of an Imperialist invasion which would bring an end to the fighting.

Sure, we can just denounce the whole thing....but that's hardly a position, it's just a "cop-out".

In my opinion, whatever the flaws of the Maoists, the result if they are successful, will be fundamentally progressive....certainly better then anything the Nepali Monarchy could produce.

And therefore, they get my support....should a really nice and civilised resistance spring up that pays homage to International Law and builds schools and hospitals when their not fighting the Nepali Forces, then I'll support them. But until that happens, I wish the Maoists a speedy victory.

You'd think that 21st century leftists would support the "forces of 1789" over a feudal Monarchy....but I suppose life's full of surprises. :o


Originally posted by Horatii
FYI the evangelicals and catholics RARELY lobby for government policy rather offer up policies to a free vote.

So Christian groups didn't cause a shitstorm when Canada legalised gay marriages? :blink:

And "free vote"....what the fuck is that? :huh:


Originally posted by Horatii
You might want to get out of the 16th century.

Well, actually, I'm past that point....you're the one who wishes to debate whether the last 5 centuries of progress were "good" or not.

And besides that, you didn't answer my point....do you, or do you not, accept restrictions on "Freedom of Religion"??? Cause if you do accept the restrictions, then that would make you one hell of an intolerant bastard if we were using your standards. :lol:


Originally posted by Horatii
Yes it was. They restored a monarchy in everything but the name. Collectivized farms and the Great Leap Forward's were just code-words for fuedalism. Fuedal lords were replaced by local party bosses, and the Monarch by Mao. They went from a faux-capitalist society to a Monarchy with left-leaning slogans.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif

Honestly, read a fucking book....you're ignorance really does astound me, and I can't really be arsed to spend my time writing responses to things you could find out with just a click of a button.

For starters though, the Chinese Revolution didn't "restore a monarchy"....it introduced a period of state-capitalist investment which developed the economy and paved the way for modern-capitalism we are starting to see in China now.

And besides that, your analogy of Mao being a "Monarch" is pretty daft....he wasn't Chairman until his death, on at least one occasion he was sidelined within the Party. And, I don't know about you, but I've not heard of any "God appointed Monarchs" that were removed, but still took part in the Government of a country and then came back as "King".


Originally posted by Horatii
So society should indoctrinate children rather than parents? Just trying to see how double sided you are.

Children shouldn't be indoctrinated at all....they should be taught to use their brains.

Honestly, I've never seen anyone create as many strawmen as you do.


Originally posted by Horatii
Cute, but you dodged my question.

Uh, no I didn't.

You said "So is smoking, and it's not outlawed. Your point?" And I replied with this....


Originally posted by My last post
Smoking is banned in many public spaces in various countries....England, Cuba, America, and so on. And, as it happens, there were recently numerous debates on this subject.

My position is that the harm caused by smoking to others is both over-exaggerated and therefore not enough to warrant action....this means I don't support a ban on smoking.

Indeed, whilst the act of murder or rape can be shown to be directly harmful to the victims, "passive smoking", due to the way in which it is investigated, cannot be said to have the same level of harm....if it has any at all.

If, for instance, a 60 year old non-smoker living in L.A. gets lung cancer....is it "passive smoking" or traffic pollution that has caused this?

At this point in time, we wouldn't be able to tell....and I doubt we ever will be able to tell.

So, in this respect, the rational choice is to allow smoking because we simply can't know for certain whether it is a significant cause of illness, and additionally, denying people the pleasure of smoking, especially if it is virtually harmless to others, would make society as a whole a less pleasurable place.

You see, making rational decisions requires that we not only think about the possible harm or benefit, but that we also rationally decide whether banning something potentially harmful is worthwile given the amount of harm its likely to cause.

After all, we don't ban driving because people die in road accidents....rather, rationally we try to minimise the risks by having things like speed limits and seat-belts.

Moralism requires that we invoke gut reactions and create "universal laws"....rationality requires that we actually think about stuff.

I can see why the first option is more appealing to you. :lol:

I certainly don't see a "dodge" there.


Originally posted by Horatii
And if it is accepted, then these people are the new "revolutionaries?" and you become "reactionary?"

No....because the word reactionary denotes someone who stands against progress in, among other things, the advancement of the means of production, ideas on society, the direction of history and the way society if formed.

In this respect, a communist society has moved beyond Oligarchies and therefore, someone promoting that idea, would be, by default, promoting social regression....making them a reactionary.

And that's why these people won't win any support....someone promoting an Oligarchy in a communist society, would be the equivalent of someone promoting a return to feudalism in modern society.

In other words, people would view them, rightly, as nutballs! :lol:


[email protected]
France is STILL dealing with the legacy that they created during the revolution.

Yeah, they sure helped preserve the status of the landed aristocracy and the Vatican in France....give me a fucking break.

What legacy is France "still dealing with"???

Though you're actually dodging my point now, not that you haven't done it repeatedly, you said:

HOWEVER, oppression and intolerance have NEVER benefited society in a positive way.

Which I refuted with exampes....so do you concede that point?


Horatii
Like which laws?

Laws to ban abortion; to ban abortion for women under a certain age; laws that prevent homosexual couples having the same legal status as heterosexual couples; and so on.

Honestly, are you unaware of the discrimination faced by women and queer people in todays society?

[redstar2000]

The "lowest point"?

I'd vote for right now! :(

In many ways, we are "digging out" (or trying to) from beneath the rubble of the last century...and it's hard!

Especially when so many people still want to "rebuild" the failed structures; when nostalgia still outweighs plain common sense.

But those are the breaks. There are some "good signs" even if they're still very small and tentative.

If this is as bad as it gets, then things will get better for us...and hopefully sooner than any of us anticipate. :)

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

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 08:02 PM
-Heretical Eurocommunism that no longer called for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
:o I completely forgot about that! Yes, Eurocommies shouldn't even have taken that name. They are known as social-democrats in common tongue.

[Horatii]

Heretical Eurocommunism that no longer called for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You might want to create an "Index" of heretical sects, just like the Catholic Church!


And why is that relevant to this discussion we are having here?

You said something along the lines of Persecution of Maoists etc. etc.


So, as far as I can see, we have two choices that are practical.

1) We support the Maoists and hope that they succeed....as quickly as possible.

2) We support the Monarchy and also support the possibility of an Imperialist invasion which would bring an end to the fighting.

Sound like Borg. :lol:


So Christian groups didn't cause a shitstorm when Canada legalised gay marriages?

You preaching your revolution "to the masses" is exactly the same as Muslims preaching their schpeel, Christians the same, Fascists, etc. Each "belief system" requires a phenomenal amount of faith. If you're upset over Christians ruthlessly indoctrinating, you might want to not be, you know, a hypocrite and preach your Marxist-Leninst revolution either. Same shit, different name. :angry:


In this respect, a communist society has moved beyond Oligarchies and therefore, someone promoting that idea, would be, by default, promoting social regression....making them a reactionary.

Since Marxist-Leninism (loose variations, I say this with a grain of salt) has been applied, would followers of this format not be labeled "reactionaries?" Only makes logical sense.


Children shouldn't be indoctrinated at all....they should be taught to use their brains.

Taught by whom? No one is completely neutral, that much is known.


Honestly, are you unaware of the discrimination faced by women and queer people in todays society?

Though there is progress to be made, we're light years beyond, say China or Iran. (I speak for Canada)


What legacy is France "still dealing with"???

The fact that the uneducated masses i.e. San-Coulottes butchered the Jacobin revolution, and thousands of innocent people. But let me guess, that was just the "price to pay?" Right?



You see, we don't just aim to liberate people from their physical chains, we also aim to liberate people from their psychological chains as well....and a Religious mind is a wasted mind.

Class consciousness in North America is a severe barrier to any sort of liberation.

Most "workers" are concerned with trifling matters such as their new 40 inch t.v; not militantly overthrowing a social order that they don't know has failed them.

[Dyst]

You preaching your revolution "to the masses" is exactly the same as Muslims preaching their schpeel, Christians the same, Fascists, etc. Each "belief system" requires a phenomenal amount of faith. If you're upset over Christians ruthlessly indoctrinating, you might want to not be, you know, a hypocrite and preach your Marxist-Leninst revolution either. Same shit, different name.

Had you only said Leninist revolution then it would almost make a small amount of sense to my ears.

However there is a difference between marxism and theology, which is that marxism is (at least claims to be) based on indesputable facts and logical reasoning, as well as good arguments.

Religions are based on nothing more than superstition, currently unable to be proven in any way (therefore we must assume it doesn't exist).

[Don't Change Your Name]

Honestly, all of it.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:23 AM
He's part of the RS-AS-LSD bloc that constantly bolds words.
But of late AS has begun to leave the other behind with the liberal use of smilies. Its a revolution in the way we write :o

But to actually comment on the topic on hand, like any movement/ideology/whatever the history of communism is made up of "ups" and "downs". More "downs" than "ups" right now but c'est la vie. Personally I'd have to view the popularity of social democracy a hundred years ago as the lowest point. Almost the entire Marxist movement in Europe seemed to be reformist.

But that's progress for you. We live and learn.

[Horatii]

However there is a difference between marxism and theology, which is that marxism is (at least claims to be) based on indesputable facts and logical reasoning, as well as good arguments.

Religions are based on nothing more than superstition, currently unable to be proven in any way (therefore we must assume it doesn't exist).

I think what you're failing to realize is that marxism is a belief system. It takes faith just like any other belief system.

Yes it's based on facts and logical reasoning, but it still takes an enormous amount of faith to believe in this inevitable outcome.

Can you not agree with that?

And I'm not talking solely about religion either.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Apr 16 2006, 11:18 PM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Apr 16 2006, 11:18 PM)
Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+--> (Fistful of Steel)Under any rational and libertarian society, people should be allowed to believe what they want.[/b]

A society, if it is going to be run rationally and democratically by its populace, cannot have room for belief....rather, it must consist of rational actors who make rational choices.

Your scenario, would effectively allow for a society run by nutballs....and historical record shows, that if a civilised society needs anything, it is members of that society who rely on rationality and not belief.

Additionally, a society plagued by Religion simply can't be "libertarian"....the Religious will try to impose their "morality" on the rest of us, and I for one, don't find anything "libertarian" in any of the major Religions.

If you think that your personal liberty will not be affected by Religious people having a say in how a society functions, then I suggest you do some brief reading on what societies plagued by superstition have been like....you may wish to start with feudal France and the actions of the Vatican to get some kind of idea of what happens when Religion represents a major social force.


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
Believing what might have caused things is not an "affront to human dignity"....

Well, when we know exactly what "caused things"....then disregarding the achievements of the human species in favour of "belief", is, in my opinion, "an affront to human dignity".

When humans have progressed to the levels of advancement that we see in todays world, keeping the illusions of a 15th century Peasant really does, to borrow a phrase, spit in the face of human achievement.

On top of that, and this is without a doubt the worse thing about Religion, Religious parents ruthlessly indoctrinate their children with that nonsense....they hinder the development of these children and, with regards girls, they often help to perpetuate the oppression of women by providing a Religious rationale for it.

As I said, there is no room for stuff like this in a civilised society.


Fistful of [email protected]
Organized religion has a lot of flaws, certainly, but they perform a lot of charity too....

Yeah, the Vatican's "charity work" in Africa is "really great". :angry:

Religious charity, like most other charity, always has a price....and it just happens that the proverbial price of Religious charity is often particularly horrendous.


Fistful of Steel
....and besides which none of this takes into account personal faith which doesn't necessarily effect anyone.

If the Religious could keep their faith "personal"....in other words, they didn't mention it nor did they try and "convert" others. Then, and only then, could we possibly live with Religion in a civilised society.

But, the Religious rarely keep their faith to themselves. After all, it's their "Godly duty" to try "convert" non-believers....and the methods range from gentle persuasion, to torture and execution. :o [/b]
Alright: Rationally speaking of course. The most commonly accepted scientific theory is that the big bang was caused when a bunch of matter that contained all the universe exploded. Then comes the question, from whence did all this random matter come from? Things don't just "pop" into existence, right. They have no excuse. Therefore if a God created it, it'd "come" into existence. And since God being all-powerful and whatnot, he escapes needing an "excuse" for being irrationally, while a random hunk of stuff has no excuse. Besides which running a society based solely on rationality would lead to a mechanized, and faceless populace who are nothing more than wheels in the cog. I'm not saying the best leaders are believers, I think belief is a personal issue that should be kept entirely aside from life. And you're stereotyping every believer, yes some religions impose their will and I'm completely against that, I'm all for tolerance and allowing people to accept what they want. Disallowing people to believe isn't very libertarian either. And again, you're stereotyping "religious people". There are some who would make for very great leaders, some who would make for very bad leaders. I know science has explained how things came about, but never accurately why. And you can provide a rationale for women's oppression with anything. Parents are always going to "indoctrinate" their children with their beliefs, it's hard to stop with the way society is. Religion itself isn't the cause of this, you're mixing up people who use religion as a scapegoat for despicable behaviour. I know people who are religious and would never act that way, you're just stereotyping them. And everything has a price, charity provided by religion no more than anything else. It's not always their "Godly duty" to "convert" nonbelievers, I'm sure this is the case but I personally oppose organized religion and support personal faith.

[Wiesty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:22 PM
Stalin's and Mao's crimes to humanity in the name of Socialism. Nothing can justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people.
amen

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)I'd vote for right now! :( [/b]

I think I'm going to vote for this thread! :lol:


Originally posted by Horatii+--> (Horatii)Sound like Borg. :lol: [/b]

Who the fuck is "Borg"???


Originally posted by Horatii
You preaching your revolution "to the masses" is exactly the same as Muslims preaching their schpeel, Christians the same, Fascists, etc. Each "belief system" requires a phenomenal amount of faith. If you're upset over Christians ruthlessly indoctrinating, you might want to not be, you know, a hypocrite and preach your Marxist-Leninst revolution either. Same shit, different name. :angry:

You know, you should think about a career in bourgeois politics!

I think answering the question: So Christian groups didn't cause a shitstorm when Canada legalised gay marriages? with what I quoted above, is just, well....an evasion.

Never mind that that paragraph is woefully ignorant of both my views and left politics in general, I'm astonished that you thought that saying all that was somehow relevant to the rather simple question I asked.

I mean, have you come here to debate....or just to act really peculiar?


Originally posted by Horatii
Since Marxist-Leninism (loose variations, I say this with a grain of salt) has been applied, would followers of this format not be labeled "reactionaries?"

In my opinion, it really depends on where we are talking about....in the first world, I'd say Leninism, or its offspring, are about as revolutionary as Tony Blair, but in developing countries, it's a different story.

For your reading pleasure: Trotskyism and what it represents; by Armchair Socialism. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47241&view=findpost&p=1292032775)


Originally posted by Horatii
Taught by whom?

Good question....I'd favour the approach where children are exposed to as many adults influences as possible and as much information as possible.

Nothings "neutral" as you rightly pointed out....but that doesn't mean to say that we can't provide children with both the education and knowledge on which they can act as rational members of society.

And the best place to start, in my opinion, would be to tell them about Marx's favourite motto: criticise everything!

A critical mind is a rational mind! :D


Originally posted by Horatii
Though there is progress to be made, we're light years beyond, say China or Iran.

So???

Just because "we're" ahead of some places, doesn't mean we should just sit back and gloat....as long as progress needs to be made, then we must fight for that progress.


Originally posted by Horatii
The fact that the uneducated masses i.e. San-Coulottes butchered the Jacobin revolution, and thousands of innocent people.

A bourgeois hack historian couldn't have said it any better! :lol:

And "uneducated"....what the fuck do you expect, they didn't have universal education back then because the aristocracy didn't think that their serfs needed to know anything about the world.

The aristocracy weren't "really nice people" you know, that's why they were butchered.


Originally posted by Horatii
But let me guess, that was just the "price to pay?" Right?

Well, do you know of any other options for removing the French aristocracy?


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Its a revolution in the way we write :o

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-020.gif

But you gotta&#39; admit, my avatar is fucking awesome&#33; <_<


Originally posted by Horatii
I think what you&#39;re failing to realize is that marxism is a belief system.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif

Honestly, although you ignore most of my points and create numerous strawmen, you do, at least, amuse me&#33;

Why do you think there are so many different Marxist tendencies and so many different Marxist authors arguing different positions....surely it couldn&#39;t be that people don&#39;t just accept what Marx said on "faith", but try to use the tools of Marxism to analyse the world and draw conclusions.

Indeed, one of the most heated controversies within the Marxist paradigm, is the question of what Marx got wrong....and the argument with regards this, usually develops into one where people consider whether Lenin corrected any of these problems.

You argument would be valid, if Marxism had not progressed in any significant way over the last century....but that, is obviously not the case.


Originally posted by Horatii
....but it still takes an enormous amount of faith to believe in this inevitable outcome.

Whether Marx&#39;s hypothesis, communism, turns out to be correct or not is something we don&#39;t know at this point in time....but there are many people who wish to put Marx to the test, myself included.

Additionally, there is some evidence already that Marx was right....but, until we see a validation of his hypothesis, the question is "up in the air".


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
....while a random hunk of stuff has no excuse.

The answer to the questions we don&#39;t yet know, will, in time, be discovered....and using the "holes" in Science as a to make Religion "scientifically legitimate" is really poor scam.

Granted, that&#39;s what the major Religions seem to like doing today....but a couple of centuries ago, they outright opposed Science.

So therefore, with confidence, I conclude that Religious explanations for the "gaps" in Scientific theory are bullshit.


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
Besides which running a society based solely on rationality would lead to a mechanized, and faceless populace who are nothing more than wheels in the cog.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif

The human species has enjoyed itself far more over the last century than at any other point in human history....as we give up our illusions, we begin to actually think about what would make us really happy. And then we act accordingly.

If you want a society where people "are nothing more than wheels in the cog"....try a Religious commune, I heard the Amish are looking for recruits&#33; :lol:


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
....yes some religions impose their will and I&#39;m completely against that....

Okay, name one relatively "popular" Religious organisation that doesn&#39;t try to "impose its will"? And never has.


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
There are some who would make for very great leaders....

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif


Fistful of [email protected]
Parents are always going to "indoctrinate" their children with their beliefs....

No, they won&#39;t.

It is possible to teach children to use their own brains to actually think about stuff....the only question that should concern us is how best we are able to do this.

The choice you offer, indoctrination or, well, more indoctrination....is a false choice.


Fistful of Steel
....you&#39;re mixing up people who use religion as a scapegoat for despicable behaviour.

"Holy Books" positively promote "despicable behaviour".

See for yourself: the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm), the Qu&#39;ran (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm) and the Book of Mormon (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm).

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Apr 19 2006, 12:43 AM--> (Armchair Socialism &#064; Apr 19 2006, 12:43 AM)
Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+--> (Fistful of Steel)....while a random hunk of stuff has no excuse.[/b]

The answer to the questions we don&#39;t yet know, will, in time, be discovered....and using the "holes" in Science as a to make Religion "scientifically legitimate" is really poor scam.

Granted, that&#39;s what the major Religions seem to like doing today....but a couple of centuries ago, they outright opposed Science.

So therefore, with confidence, I conclude that Religious explanations for the "gaps" in Scientific theory are bullshit.


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
Besides which running a society based solely on rationality would lead to a mechanized, and faceless populace who are nothing more than wheels in the cog.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif

The human species has enjoyed itself far more over the last century than at any other point in human history....as we give up our illusions, we begin to actually think about what would make us really happy. And then we act accordingly.

If you want a society where people "are nothing more than wheels in the cog"....try a Religious commune, I heard the Amish are looking for recruits&#33; :lol:


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
....yes some religions impose their will and I&#39;m completely against that....

Okay, name one relatively "popular" Religious organisation that doesn&#39;t try to "impose its will"? And never has.


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
There are some who would make for very great leaders....

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-018.gif


Fistful of [email protected]
Parents are always going to "indoctrinate" their children with their beliefs....

No, they won&#39;t.

It is possible to teach children to use their own brains to actually think about stuff....the only question that should concern us is how best we are able to do this.

The choice you offer, indoctrination or, well, more indoctrination....is a false choice.


Fistful of Steel
....you&#39;re mixing up people who use religion as a scapegoat for despicable behaviour.

"Holy Books" positively promote "despicable behaviour".

See for yourself: the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm), the Qu&#39;ran (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm) and the Book of Mormon (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm). [/b]
I don&#39;t think science will be ever able to completely explain everything, and that if it ever can it may eventually link up with religion. Stephen Hawking (a leading theoretical physicist and widely admired in the scientific community) said it was entirely possible there was a God. You can claim something is bullshit, but right now you have as much proof as the religious types do. How can you honestly say that humanity has enjoyed itself more in the last century than in any other point in human history? I&#39;m sure there&#39;s a good anthropological measure of happiness? Or you know personally how much people enjoyed living? :rolleyes: And if a religious commune was the only form of society where I wasn&#39;t a wheel in a cog, I would sign up for it. And yes, just laugh at a statement without providing any reason for not doing so. Great argument. And you took the "indoctrination" quote out of context. I said "it&#39;s hard to stop with the way society is". It&#39;s not impossible, but it would be easier in a better society. And I don&#39;t believe a religious person has to necessarily subscribe to any holy book or teaching, I know the two most popular examples promote negative things but I&#39;ve never said to follow them, I said people who are religious get pigeonholed because of things like that.

P.S. What is it with people on this forum and their incessant need to randomly bold words.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Mesijs+--> (Mesijs)That doesn&#39;t mean churces shouldn&#39;t be rebuilded.

Then let the superstitious do it if that&#39;s what they want....and have the Vatican fund it.

Do you really think that Construction Workers&#39; should have to rebuild monuments to ignorance just because some backward twits want them? After all, in a communist society one would work for pleasure, and I certainly wouldn&#39;t find it pleasurable rebuilding Cathedrals and neither do I imagine the vast majority of Construction Workers would.

So really, you would like to see Construction Workers&#39; forced to rebuild these butt-ugly buildiungs....if I borrow a phrase from yourself, "you&#39;re not a communist".

[/b]

If some people can get strength and humanity from religion, why not support it? The have the right to practice their religion. Communism isn&#39;t about the dogma of one &#39;right&#39; belief. You would only create frustration among the population. Let it exercise it&#39;s rights and support them in doing it.





Originally posted by Mesijs+--> (Mesijs)Right, the Russian&#39;s shouldn&#39;t support religion. Why not?

Are you completely unaware of the history of Organised Religion?

Here are a few recent examples....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292051377 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48710&view=findpost&p=1292051377)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292045108 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48138&view=findpost&p=1292045108)

A few centuries ago, things were worse&#33; :o

Religion, has no place in civilised society....it is in fact, an affront to human dignity.

[/b]

Excuse me, but this is very silly arguing. Let&#39;s say that communism is about the Gulag. Let&#39;s say that communism is about hanging innocent people. Let&#39;s say communism is connected with starvation. These are all bullshit-arguments. And your anti-religion arguments are also bullshit. A lot of people help other people because of religion. Let&#39;s support these positive things and abandon the negative things you are pointing at. Religion isn&#39;t automatically connected with bad things, as isn&#39;t for example communism.





[email protected]
And your opinion about architecture is not important.

Well "my opinion" is less and opinion, and more an objective fact....centuries old buildings do tend to be architecturally poor and therefore, they require lots of maintenance.

This is all very labour intensive, and therefore, just knocking down the buildings and building new structures, preferably ones with some use, would be the desirable option.



That&#39;s your opinion, again. Some people find religion useful. That&#39;s not my opinion, and also not yours. But let the people decide for themselves.





Mesijs
So you are anti-democratic.

If the majority is wrong, then I do oppose their opinion....after all, the majority don&#39;t want communism at the moment, but that doesn&#39;t mean I am just gong to abandon the communist project.

And additionally, if I was required to rebuild Cathedrals, then I would exercise my sovereign right to say fuck off and do it yourself&#33; :lol:



That&#39;s very communist. :lol: I thought communism was about the dictature of the proletariat, the rule of the many, etc. You&#39;re more a classic liberal now. :lol:

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by Matthijs


Anyway, low points? A tough question, there were many.

-The crushing of the Paris Commune(not really Marxism, I guess).

-Stalin allowing Trotsky to leave the USSR and write stuff, instead of ice-picking him straight away.

Indeed, allowing someone to write stuff is definately a low point in Marxism. Instead all independent writers, theatre producers, papers and moviemakers should be censored and/or killed. :huh: Excuse me, I don&#39;t see the point of your argument, when you mention allowing someone to write as a low point...




-Krushchev&#39;s Secret Speech, peaceful coexistance, capitalist reforms, et cetera.



Indeed, because we all prefer gulag, terror, show trials, famine, war, forced labour, repression, censorship, exploitation rather than letting people out of the gulag, stopping the terror, peace, loosening of the censorship et cetera. I don&#39;t really get your logic. Why not mention the millions of innocent shot, worked or starved death in Siberia in the years 1925-1953? Do you seriously consider the Khrushchev era worse than the Stalin era?

Also painfully ironic that you didn&#39;t mention any massacres and/or atrocities committed by &#39;communist&#39; regimes...

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+--> (Fistful of Steel)....and that if it ever can it may eventually link up with religion.[/b]

Well, there is, at present, no evidence in support of this hypothesis....and with the complete absence of any solid evidence, we therefore are obliged to disregard such a hypothesis.

You see, that&#39;s how Science works....someone proposes a theory, and then the evidence either validates or falsifies said theory. And, at present, there is no positive evidence pointing in the direction that there is a "God".

You see, not only do you need a theory as to why there might be a "God", but you also need some evidence in support of your theory....labeling the "gaps" in scientific knowledge the result of "God&#39;s work", is completely useless.


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel+--> (Fistful of Steel)You can claim something is bullshit, but right now you have as much proof as the religious types do.[/b]

You&#39;re right....I have no proof of "God&#39;s" existence and therefore, with positive evidence completely lacking, I conclude "God" doesn&#39;t exist&#33;

I&#39;m not required to prove a negative....you know, the Burden of Proof (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457&view=findpost&p=1292009345) stuff.


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
How can you honestly say that humanity has enjoyed itself more in the last century than in any other point in human history?

Well, I think most people would agree that humans, over the last century, have found that there are more activities that are pleasurable than previously thought....basically, we&#39;ve dropped a lot of traditional "morality", and found that fucking was fun&#33; :D

Honestly, if you think human society was "more fun" before modern-capitalism and the developments it brought, then I&#39;m sure you could find a few countries that still have a more or less pre-capitalist social form....like say, "Saudi" Arabia&#33; :lol:


Originally posted by Fistful of Steel
And if a religious commune was the only form of society where I wasn&#39;t a wheel in a cog, I would sign up for it.

Well, for starters, this is daft because a Religious commune is precisely the type of society where people "are nothing more than wheels in the cog"....something you have said you oppose.

Though, so long as you&#39;re not a woman, queer or under 18, a Religious commune might not be that "bad"....for a middle aged man, I suppose it might almost be tolerable. :lol:


Originally posted by Mesijs
If some people can get strength and humanity from religion, why not support it?

"Strength and humanity"??? :lol:

More like bigotry, sexism, homophobia, relentless moralism, irrationality....need I go on?

Religious paradigms, are, by definition, uniquely destructive forces because they trap the standards of a previous epoch and then continue to promote these outdated standards in the present epoch....in other words, Religious paradigms are enemies to human progress.

And not only that, the people they "inspire", do try to reintroduce these outdated standards....that&#39;s why in capitalism, a secular epoch, we have drug laws. :angry:

The "strength" the Religious get from their Religion, is often the "strength" to try and oppress others. And there&#39;s no room for that in a communist society.

And additionally, I didn&#39;t deny their "right" to Religion....I denied their "right" to my labour.

But that isn&#39;t good enough for you is it? You not only want to tolerate superstition, you want me to help build monuments to superstition....and to that, I say piss off&#33;


Originally posted by Mesijs
Excuse me, but this is very silly arguing.

So pointing out that Religious institutions and the Religious constantly undertake in barbaric practices is "silly arguing"....how on earth is anything to be argue with you? After all, you&#39;ve just basically said the evidence doesn&#39;t matter.


Originally posted by Mesijs
These are all bullshit-arguments.

No they&#39;re not.

If someone wished to repeat the history of 20th century communism, then people would have every reason to bring up those arguments....and that&#39;s why the "old left" is looking particularly old these days&#33; :lol:

However, even most of the "old left" agrees that we need to do some things differently....where as the Religious, as far as I&#39;m aware, have not shown any interest in revising the practices they used in more barbarous epochs.

The Christian&#39;s of today, have not said that persecuting women and queers "is the wrong way to go". Indeed they sincerely want to repeat the practices of more barbarous epochs....and with the advances in technology, one can only imagine just how horrific they&#39;ll be this time round.

The Religious have given no indication that they are willing to stop persecuting "sin"....indeed their actions show that they are just as willing as ever to try and make life hard for "sinners".

The only thing worse than this, is that people who supposedly stand for human progress consider this sort of practice to be evidence of "strength and humanity"....and despite all your sucking up, they&#39;ll try to persecute you too&#33;


Originally posted by Mesijs
A lot of people help other people because of religion.

Like who?

Name some Religious organisation who do stuff because they&#39;re "really nice people" rather than because they&#39;re try to stop "sin".


Originally posted by Mesijs
Religion isn&#39;t automatically connected with bad things....

You&#39;re right....it&#39;s only "connected with bad things" 99.99% of the time&#33; :lol:


[email protected]
That&#39;s your opinion, again.

Honestly, you&#39;re like a brick wall&#33; :(

It&#39;s not "my opinion" that old buildings are more prone to failure and therefore require more maintenance; and neither is it "my opinion" that correcting the faults in old buildings is a labour intensive task....rather, both these things are objective facts.


Mesijs
But let the people decide for themselves.

I never objected to that....rather I objected to your proposal that those who don&#39;t want to build monuments to superstition should be "made" to do so.

As I said, not only do you want to suck-up to the Religious, you also want to compel me to use my labour time to build monuments of ignorance for these people.

And you can kiss my ass if you think that&#39;s gonna&#39; happen. http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/tiere/animal-smiley-084.gif

[rebelworker]

Crushing of the Parisn Commune(not entirely communism but hey)

The Bolshevik supression of the workers councils

The Bolshevik Supressionof the Revolutionary Movement in The Ukraine

The sit back and wait aproach to communism in the face of the Nazis.

The communist Party&#39;s use of nes weapons to sabotage the revolution in spain while the revolutionaries were loseing the fight against the Facists for lack of weapons.

The Gulags and forced famine in Russia.

Everything that followed(see above).

The Bolshevik suppresion of the revolutionary workers movement in Hugary 56

The Bolshevik Invasion of chezkoslovakia 68.

The idiocy of Che in Bolivia(its called popular support man, ever heard of it)

The Communist Parties Intervention against the revolutionary Movement in france 68

The Pol POT disaster.

The workers in Chile not arming themselves.

The continued suppression of the revolutionary workers movement in China by the Communist Party.

The US supported war on the people of Nicaragua, Guatemala & El Salvadore

Both the US and Soviet Union using Africa as a chess board.

The fact that some people think all these things are good both totaly descrediting Communism and turning workers away from an ideology that could lead to our liberation.

Ignorance isnt bliss, it leads to a bullet in someone else&#39;s brain who dosnt deserve it.

[LoneRed]

its not an issue of dialectics "failing" dialectics just explains how the world works the way it is, the most glaring and obvious instance of dialectics at work is evolution, its that simple.


stalin et al. used dialectics to justify what they did, even if meant by warping dialectics to fit their own methods.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:13 AM
Foward: Bolding every other word doesn&#39;t make you look intelligent.


i agree, i havent read what you put, but bolding that much doesnt get the debate anywhere, in true redstar fashion, trying to hit your point home with bolding, trying to make it look more "right"

[PRC-UTE]

Probably one of the lowest points was when many communists and anarchists denounced the Easter Rising as a putsch. Radek wrote an article entitled "their song is over". :lol:

[вор в законе]

The suppression of the Spartacist Uprising led by Luxemburg and Liebknecht was a key event. Had they succeeded, many things might have been different today.

Personally, the suppression of the KKE during the Greek Civil War was a very important moment for me, even though I accuse the then leadership for many mistakes. I lost relatives then by the monarchists and their purges.

I will agree with redstar2000... this is the lowest point for us.

[Eoin Dubh]

Soviet Red Army troops behaving in a disgraceful fashion toward civilians in Nemmersdorf and Prussia generally.

[Abood]

The lowest point in marxist history is when people started discussing revolution in the internet instead of preparing for it. :lol: