Why?

[communismfailsforareason]

Why does communism ultimately fail? discuss.

[Avtomatov]

when did it fail?

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:39 AM
Why does communism ultimately fail? discuss.
Communism "does not ultimately fail." The states today that are "communist" (in the views of the US, not in fact) are dictatorships that, to me, followed abberations of vanguard communism. Which to me, isn't really all that swell of a theory.

[communismfailsforareason]

Exactly the states that are today communist aren't really communist so hasn't communism already failed?

[Avtomatov]

No communism has not failed. What has happened is some socialist states have failed. But you see you cant even say that socialism has failed, because there many socialist states left today.

How can communism fail when it hasnt even been acheived.

And if you want to know why some of those states have failed i will tell you. Because of capitalist states sabotaging them and setting up fascist dictatorships before the communists take control of a country.

[Vendetta]

There's also a little thing called trial and error.

[Avtomatov]

No shit. Do you think a capitalist counry would survive in a world dominated by communists?

[Janus]

Exactly the states that are today communist aren't really communist so hasn't communism already failed?
The attempts to put it into practice have failed but the theory itself has not.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:58 AM
No shit. Do you think a capitalist counry would survive in a world dominated by communists?
No longer than a country practicing feudalism would work in the middle of a modern industrial capitalist part of the world.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:51 AM
Exactly the states that are today communist aren't really communist so hasn't communism already failed?
That's some fairly shaky reasoning you have there, friend. When people have yet to put a theory into practice no one, apart perhaps from the mentally ill, would say it has 'already failed'.

I'll let you try again though, I'm nice like that ;)

[jaycee]

look it always makes me laugh when people try to argue that communism failed and therefore we should give up our fight. Any one who is 'anti-communist',i.e anti what they are told is communism would admit and even argue from the fact that the workers had no power or freedom in these states. However the basis for communism is the working class taking political and economic power into its own hands. This is the meaning of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as oppossed to the dictatorship of the capitalists that we live in today.

In the USSR as in CUba as in China etc the people who had power were the state officalls and as the economy was run by the state the state officaills were clearly, (to use a phrse used by Engelswhen describing what happens whe the state takes over a business) an 'aggrigate capitalist

[encephalon]

And democracy failed thousands of years ago in rome and greece countless times, again and again until the material conditions were ripe for some semblance of democratic involvement.

Sometimes things go wrong. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

Look, this has been addressed a billion and five times in the past few years on this forum alone, I'm sure you're competent enough to use a mouse and keyboard to find the answer for yourself. Stop asking stupid questions that are only meant to instigate and troll.

[Si Pinto]

These 'discussions' on OI are always the same.

Q - Why has communism failed?

A - It hasn't.

Q - What about USSR, China, Cuba?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

Q - Oh right, but communism is shit isn't it?

A - Why?

Q - Well look at the USSR, China and Cuba they weren't a success were they?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

etc, etc, etc........

Nevermind about a bloody OI chatroom...I think we need an OI learning class, a pretty basic one.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 19 2006, 12:34 PM
These 'discussions' on OI are always the same.

Q - Why has communism failed?

A - It hasn't.

Q - What about USSR, China, Cuba?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

Q - Oh right, but communism is shit isn't it?

A - Why?

Q - Well look at the USSR, China and Cuba they weren't a success were they?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

etc, etc, etc........

Nevermind about a bloody OI chatroom...I think we need an OI learning class, a pretty basic one.
You're being idealist, you'r treating the OIers like people who could learn.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 19 2006, 12:36 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 19 2006, 12:36 PM)
Si [email protected] 19 2006, 12:34 PM
These 'discussions' on OI are always the same.

Q - Why has communism failed?

A - It hasn't.

Q - What about USSR, China, Cuba?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

Q - Oh right, but communism is shit isn't it?

A - Why?

Q - Well look at the USSR, China and Cuba they weren't a success were they?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

etc, etc, etc........

Nevermind about a bloody OI chatroom...I think we need an OI learning class, a pretty basic one.
You're being idealist, you'r treating the OIers like people who could learn. [/b]
they can, the real question is if they want to...

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:51 AM
Exactly the states that are today communist aren't really communist so hasn't communism already failed?
Vanguardism has failed not communism, but you try telling that to some of these bog-brained murpheys, you'd have more chance getting a blow job off the pope

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jul 19 2006, 01:18 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jul 19 2006, 01:18 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 12:51 AM
Exactly the states that are today communist aren't really communist so hasn't communism already failed?
Vanguardism has failed not communism, but you try telling that to some of these bog-brained murpheys, you'd have more chance getting a blow job off the pope [/b]
Oh yeah because the revolution just starting of it's own accord is so much more successful. :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 19 2006, 01:18 PM
getting a blow job off the pope
Hmm yeah, there is an idea... but should we ask him to remove his protetic teeth, or not?

Luís Henrique

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Jul 19 2006, 01:28 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Jul 19 2006, 01:28 PM)
Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 19 2006, 01:18 PM

[email protected] 19 2006, 12:51 AM
Exactly the states that are today communist aren't really communist so hasn't communism already failed?
Vanguardism has failed not communism, but you try telling that to some of these bog-brained murpheys, you'd have more chance getting a blow job off the pope
Oh yeah because the revolution just starting of it's own accord is so much more successful. :lol: [/b]
Yes, it certainly would be. If people are unified in working towards a goal, things are accomplished much faster. A vanguard just lets the vision of a few become reality by oppressing the masses.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 19 2006, 12:34 PM
These 'discussions' on OI are always the same.

Q - Why has communism failed?

A - It hasn't.

Q - What about USSR, China, Cuba?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

Q - Oh right, but communism is shit isn't it?

A - Why?

Q - Well look at the USSR, China and Cuba they weren't a success were they?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

etc, etc, etc........

Nevermind about a bloody OI chatroom...I think we need an OI learning class, a pretty basic one.
that should be stickied. no seriously i see this exact thread pop about every week when a new capitalist joins the forums to poke some fun at the communists.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Si [email protected] 19 2006, 12:34 PM
These 'discussions' on OI are always the same.

Q - Why has communism failed?

A - It hasn't.

Q - What about USSR, China, Cuba?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

Q - Oh right, but communism is shit isn't it?

A - Why?

Q - Well look at the USSR, China and Cuba they weren't a success were they?

A - They're not communist, communism is a classless, stateless society.

etc, etc, etc........

Nevermind about a bloody OI chatroom...I think we need an OI learning class, a pretty basic one.
its usually a NEW guy who says those things...

[theraven]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+Jul 19 2006, 06:58 PM--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor @ Jul 19 2006, 06:58 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 19 2006, 01:18 PM

[email protected] 19 2006, 12:51 AM
Exactly the states that are today communist aren't really communist so hasn't communism already failed?
Vanguardism has failed not communism, but you try telling that to some of these bog-brained murpheys, you'd have more chance getting a blow job off the pope
Oh yeah because the revolution just starting of it's own accord is so much more successful. :lol:
Yes, it certainly would be. If people are unified in working towards a goal, things are accomplished much faster. A vanguard just lets the vision of a few become reality by oppressing the masses. [/b]
the only sound communsit theory as far as im concned is the technocracy one, whereby its just kinda happens. i'm sorry to all you advocates of a bloody revolt, but thats nto gonna bring about communism. sorry.

[Janus]

So we should get down on our knees and beg the capitalists in the hopes that they will just keel over? :rolleyes:

[Connolly]

i'm sorry to all you advocates of a bloody revolt, but thats nto gonna bring about communism. sorry.

And your in a position to say its gonna be bloody?

(*offpoint - are you god by any chance?)



If you think the bourgeois state is going to sit by and let the workers actually create something better than "what they offer" - your living in fantasy land. Things just arnt like that.

I must say though, technocracy - as far as I can gather - is remarkably like communistic ideas.

[red team]

I must say though, technocracy - as far as I can gather - is remarkably like communistic ideas.

Yes, yesss! The techno virus is spreading... muhahaha! :lol:

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:31 PM
So we should get down on our knees and beg the capitalists in the hopes that they will just keel over? :rolleyes:
no, if technology advances to the stages the technocrats think it will then capitslim will just dissaper. capislitsm exists out of rarity after all.




And your in a position to say its gonna be bloody?

(*offpoint - are you god by any chance?)

rebellions always are.


If you think the bourgeois state is going to sit by and let the workers actually create something better than "what they offer" - your living in fantasy land. Things just arnt like that.

governmetns are made up of wokre just like everyone else. again this isn't the workers creatng some better world, its technology allowing everyone to live a better life.


I must say though, technocracy - as far as I can gather - is remarkably like communistic ideas.

thats why i said it was the only reality communist idea i've heard./

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:40 PM
i'm sorry to all you advocates of a bloody revolt, but thats nto gonna bring about communism. sorry.
It desn't have to be bloody, the capitalists could just give up the means of production, but I can't see that happening for some odd reason.

[Connolly]

Yes, yesss! The techno virus is spreading... muhahaha!

Shit :angry: ..........I must have caught it off raven :lol:

I feel like dirt now :(


rebellions always are.

The collapse of the soviet union says otherwise.


governmetns are made up of wokre just like everyone else. again this isn't the workers creatng some better world, its technology allowing everyone to live a better life

Those, who it is in their interest to stop such social advances, use the state as their protectorate, the bourgeois state.

The development of technology suggests another mode of production to emerge - that also means the emergence of new classes, or a classless society.

It is a clsss struggle - and the states primary purpose is to protect the interests of a particular class. It is a bourgeois state, protecting its laws and its production relations - it must be destroyed by revolution - not by some gradual technocratic reform.


thats why i said it was the only reality communist idea i've heard./

And in what way does it conflict with Marxism - or even anarchism?

Both marxists and anarchists want to advance the methods of production - we are, to an extent - "technocrats"

[Zero]

Technocracy is a sociological structure. More of a way of operating in a post-capitalistic world.


Originally posted by "theraven"
no, if technology advances to the stages the technocrats think it will then capitslim will just dissaper. capislitsm exists out of rarity after all.
Sure, in a book.
On paper its quite easy to draw out roadmaps beyond a system functioning on exclusion and scarcity. I'd like to see you explain to me how to put this into effect however without a revolution.

[General Patton]

its usually a NEW guy who says those things...

Yeah. Perhaps if the "communists" here decided to explain their convoluted thinking, then perhaps those asking the "simple" questions will be completely turned off and hate leftists as much as I do. Yeah, it's better that you don't answer any questions about your 'philosophies'. You are only bound to make new enemies that way.

[Zero]

Hey Patton. Trolling gets you banned. Fuck off if thats all your going to do.

[encephalon]

The problem is that no matter what, a ruling class will not give up control without being forced to do so. This is why revolution happens. Most technocrats here, from what I can gather, seem to accept that; it just isn't a required part of being a technocrat.