Re-education camps

[Xiao Banfa]

I am very much in favour, after the revolution of sending the particularly hard-headed members of the ruling classes and capitalist ideologues to re-education camps in order to "straighten them out" through labour and propaganda movies.

The labour will be difficult and they will be forced to work reasonably long days, they will be fed simple food and wil be shown propaganda movies after their day of labouring is over.

The technique of feeding people the same message repeatedly is quite effective in getting people to believe things, as I have found out by repeatedly browsing the MIM webpage.

I can't see how this is inhumane and we would be giving them a chance to redeem and rehabilitate themselves.

[apathy maybe]

I don't know if this is a joke or not ...

If it is meant as one, it is not very good.

The problem with this sort of system is twofold.

Firstly, who decides who goes to the camps? Who administers them? Who decides what movies will be shown? What you get is a new state apparatus, with a new ruling class. Power corrupts, as history shows us.

Secondly, it sucks. As an idea it is crap. It does not mesh with reality. Sorry.

[Xiao Banfa]

Firstly, who decides who goes to the camps?

I wouldn't have though that would be a problem. First of all, marxism has pointed out to us who are the exploiters. The state apparatus of a proletarian democracy would be the most aware of who the parasites are.

People who have been known to be extremely right-wing.


Who administers them?
The armed forces.


Who decides what movies will be shown?

I'm sure some investigative commitee could be set up to determine the most effective movies.


What you get is a new state apparatus, with a new ruling class
Most certainly, a new ruling class. The proletariat! A state apparatus, yes- one subject to the mass democracy.


Power corrupts, as history shows us
True, but we're not tallking about Napoleon being installed as emperor. We're talking about seasoned, competent revolutionaries being elected to positions of responsibility through democratic means.

Only this formula, "as history shows us" has brought power to the communist movement.

[Marukusu]

I agree with comrade apathy maybe. Why not execute them instead?

[Xiao Banfa]

I agree with comrade apathy maybe. Why not execute them instead?
Executing millions of people worldwide? Fuck that for a joke!

Not in the worst periods in the socialist countries did that happen.

[Marukusu]

Executing millions of people worldwide? Fuck that for a joke!

Imprisoning and brainwashing millions of people worldwide? Exactly how is that more humane?

[apathy maybe]

Will there not be, by the time the revolution comes, a great uprising against capitalism and the state? Surely any who oppose this movement will do so either by violence (in which case they will be killed) or by arguments (in which case they will be ridiculed). We will not need these mass camps you propose.


Besides, are you not also attempting to reach a class less state less society?
History shows that states do not go away easily. Your new state, with its new ruling class will perpetuate it self.

Those in power will keep it, or there will simply be a cycle, as in the "democratic" countries today.

The mass of the people will not have power.


So over all I say,

Fuck the state. (In all its forms.) And fuck the ruling class (whichever class it is, if it is ruling, I'm against it).

[Ol' Dirty]

I oppose this concentration camp that you propose. If the state has the right to send people to massive centers to be "reeducated" (which is merely a code word for tortured), what power don't they posses? Why not take away freedom of speech, or impose a state religion? It makes no sense to me. Power corrpts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Dyst]

This won't even be an issue. Same with all other idiotic post-capitalism questions and arguments.

If the revolution comes, as in the real communist revolution with no political intention or theories behind it, only masses rising up to end oppression in every form, what use is it to theorize how we'll deal with opposition?

Whatever we'll face will most likely die.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I don't know if this is a joke or not ...

If it is meant as one, it is not very good.

Look at his image/avatar (North Korean) and his signatures.

It's probably not a joke.


I agree with comrade apathy maybe. Why not execute them instead?

Would you slaughter your mother if she became opposed to a "revolution", or would you just confine it to slaughtering other human beings?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 14 2006, 09:33 AM
I am very much in favour, after the revolution of sending the particularly hard-headed members of the ruling classes and capitalist ideologues to re-education camps in order to "straighten them out" through labour and propaganda movies.

The labour will be difficult and they will be forced to work reasonably long days, they will be fed simple food and wil be shown propaganda movies after their day of labouring is over.

The technique of feeding people the same message repeatedly is quite effective in getting people to believe things, as I have found out by repeatedly browsing the MIM webpage.

I can't see how this is inhumane and we would be giving them a chance to redeem and rehabilitate themselves.
:huh: :mellow: <_<

you&#39;re kidding right? That&#39;s complete crap. How can you justify it? How would ou like if they sent us to reducation camps here and now? These few &#39;hard-headed&#39; people are entitled to their views it&#39;s called freedom of speech. If they can convince us that capitalism is better than that&#39;s great for them but most likely it&#39;ll be vica-versa.

[Delta]

Daily life will be all the re-education that they need.

I would certainly oppose any government apparatus throwing people in prison and basically torturing them. If the government is truly democratically controlled, then it is likely that the members who participate are going to have a variety of views, and so it would be very difficult to get the people to agree that a certain subset of the populace should be handled in this way.

[Orange Juche]

This reminds me of George Orwell&#39;s 1984.

You can attempt to "re-educate" all you like, it is impossible to force people to truly believe anything. Battering them down in an authoritarian manner won&#39;t truly change anything... and it goes against any concept of liberty within society.

It seems to me that to effectively "re-educate," all we need to do is prove them wrong. An attempt at forcing them to change their opinion won&#39;t do jack. But when they see an effective communistic and therefore are blatantly wrong, theres a better likelihood that they will see the errors in what they believe. And if not, the vast majority of other people will, making their illogical notions not deserving of anyone&#39;s attention.

As long as they commit no actions in harm to the working class, fuck &#39;em.

[RevSouth]

When all the dirt the cappies and ruling class has been sweeping under the rugs sees light again, I think most of the people who thought they were right wing will be turned to what we already see. Then only the really fucked up people will still be reactionaries, and those most extreme of the bourgeoisie, who will most likely die in the revolution, so I don&#39;t see this as a pertinent or realistic issue.

[vyborg]

i agree with the answers of the comrades to this strange idea.

i will add only a warning: as marxists we know that the state, even a healty workers&#39; state, is a source of degeneration for the revolution. this means that from the outset we must reduce it as much as possibile (lenin called it a semi-state). the more people in prison and in education camps u have the more policemen and soldiers u have the longer is the process of fading away of the state

[Xiao Banfa]

who oppose this movement will do so either by violence (in which case they will be killed) or by arguments (in which case they will be ridiculed).

Well, I would like to kill as few people as possible. After the defeat of the counter-revolution there would most likely be a great many reactionaries left.
These people need to be re-educated as a captive audience so they have a chance of shifting their mentality.


Whatever we&#39;ll face will most likely die.

Ha&#33; In any war there are enemy survivors- I&#39;m not into butchering them- I&#39;d like to give them a chance.


If the state has the right to send people to massive centers to be "reeducated" (which is merely a code word for tortured), what power don&#39;t they posses? Why not take away freedom of speech, or impose a state religion? It makes no sense to me.

Nowhere did I propose torture. As for freedom of speech, these people can say what they want- there is no way humane way to control speech and thought but we can attempt to alter their mentalities from having a parasitic nature to having a proletarian one.

A "state religion" in the way you term it hides a pluralistic mentality. There is no room for pluralism in proletarian democracy; just as their is no room for monarchy in a bourgeois capitalist democracy.


Power corrpts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely

Man, I couldn&#39;t agree with you more but I&#39;m not sure why you are bringing this up.


Look at his image/avatar (North Korean) and his signatures.

I&#39;m taking the piss with the avatar, but what&#39;s wrong with the signatures?


These few &#39;hard-headed&#39; people are entitled to their views it&#39;s called freedom of speech

They are absolutely entitled to their freedom of speech- I&#39;m not proposing a medical procedure that will alter their brain.

A fledgling proletarian state will need all the tools it can get it&#39;s hands on to deal with reactionaries.


If the government is truly democratically controlled, then it is likely that the members who participate are going to have a variety of views, and so it would be very difficult to get the people to agree that a certain subset of the populace should be handled in this way.

This may the case and if so, so be it- I&#39;m just proposing an idea, this isn&#39;t some dictat that will be imposed by some "supreme leader"


An attempt at forcing them to change their opinion won&#39;t do jack.

Couldn&#39;t agree with you more, mate.


When all the dirt the cappies and ruling class has been sweeping under the rugs sees light again, I think most of the people who thought they were right wing will be turned to what we already see.

Have you ever heard the verbal diarorrhea that comes out of the mouth of Ann Coulter, Bill O&#39; Reilly and Miranda Devine.

Don&#39;t you just want these guys to have a holiday in Cambodia?

[Marukusu]

Would you slaughter your mother if she became opposed to a "revolution", or would you just confine it to slaughtering other human beings?

If it would somehow benefit the revolution and the masses, then yes: I would kill my own mother. However, that is a very unlikely scenario.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 15 2006, 04:29 AM

When all the dirt the cappies and ruling class has been sweeping under the rugs sees light again, I think most of the people who thought they were right wing will be turned to what we already see.

Have you ever heard the verbal diarorrhea that comes out of the mouth of Ann Coulter, Bill O&#39; Reilly and Miranda Devine.

Don&#39;t you just want these guys to have a holiday in Cambodia?
Wouldn&#39;t mind it. Their pretty hardline though, and are the ones I am referring too as being most likely killed in the Revolution. Can&#39;t you just see Bill O&#39;Reilly trying to defend his mansion in South Florida in his underwear with an antique rifle? It&#39;s his followers I see as being converted before and during the revolution.

[Ol' Dirty]

If the state has the right to send people to massive centers to be "reeducated" (which is merely a code word for tortured), what power don&#39;t they posses? Why not take away freedom of speech, or impose a state religion? It makes no sense to me.


Nowhere did I propose torture.
Sorry. I couldn&#39;t tell how you were going to "re-educate" people without harming them in some fashion. My mistake. I take it back.


As for freedom of speech, these people can say what they want- there is no way humane way to control speech and thought but we can attempt to alter their mentalities from having a parasitic nature to having a proletarian one.

In the revolutionary process, a majority of the people would have to be for revolt, or it would not suceed. By the time the revolution is over, a majority of the counter-revolutionaries would be ejected, makeing these camps you propose less than useless

[Kropotkin]

I am very much in favour, after the revolution of sending the particularly hard-headed members of the ruling classes and capitalist ideologues to re-education camps in order to "straighten them out" through labour and propaganda movies.

The labour will be difficult and they will be forced to work reasonably long days, they will be fed simple food and wil be shown propaganda movies after their day of labouring is over.

The technique of feeding people the same message repeatedly is quite effective in getting people to believe things, as I have found out by repeatedly browsing the MIM webpage.

I can&#39;t see how this is inhumane and we would be giving them a chance to redeem and rehabilitate themselves.



I think "re-education" camps would be completely unessesary. The Capitalists in the event of a communist revolution would be powerless. No police, no military, no ecomonic power at their disposal. Should they gain enough people to try and overthrow the revolution their permanent elimination would happen rather swiftly. So I see no need for jails or camps of any kind. If they have any sense of self preservation they&#39;ll fall in line.

[rouchambeau]

The technique of feeding people the same message repeatedly is quite effective in getting people to believe things, as I have found out by repeatedly browsing the MIM webpage.


roffle.

This post and all of it&#39;s comments are proof that everyone here at RevLeft needs to chill the fuck out.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Some people have no understanding of what a revolution really is. The workers who are now repressed by a state run by the capitalist minority, will instead repress that capitalist minority with their own state. A state being the control of legitimate armed force.


If the state has the right to send people to massive centers to be "reeducated" (which is merely a code word for tortured), what power don&#39;t they posses?

None. If it&#39;s a workers&#39; state that doesn&#39;t matter. You don&#39;t the working class to have unlimited power?


Why not take away freedom of speech, or impose a state religion?

There should be no "freedom of speech" for reactionaries and capitalists. Of course, absolute freedom of speech has not existed anywhere, ever in history. The real question is who decides what can and cannot be done, the capitalists (as it is now) or the workers (as it will be in socialism).


It makes no sense to me.

Not suprising.


Power corrpts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is a line from a bourgeois revolutionary with a bourgeois liberal outlook, it really has no bearing on us.

[LoneRed]

so you mean to tell me that there would be millions of bourgeois?? haa, very doubtful

[bezdomni]

If you think re-education camps will be necessary, then you do not have a materialist mindset.

When "material becomes conscious of itself" before, during and after a socialsit revolution - the masses will already be revolutionary; therefore re-education camps would be totally unnecessary. Socialist "indoctrination", in the brainwashing sense, is not necessary, nor should it be encouraged. People will (and do) support socialism because of their material conditions, not because they have been brainwashed by the "right people".

[Xiao Banfa]

If you think re-education camps will be necessary, then you do not have a materialist mindset.

When "material becomes conscious of itself" before, during and after a socialsit revolution - the masses will already be revolutionary; therefore re-education camps would be totally unnecessary. Socialist "indoctrination", in the brainwashing sense, is not necessary, nor should it be encouraged. People will (and do) support socialism because of their material conditions, not because they have been brainwashed by the "right people".


That statement is generally true, in terms of peoples&#39; material conditions determining what sort of state would be in their interest. However there are reactionaries, people who are mad- they don&#39;t see reason.

Someone like Ann Coulter just doesn&#39;t make sense. Her lack of materialism obscures rational thought. There are heaps of people like this.

They will need extra help to see the merits of a workers&#39; state.

[Avtomatov]

tino rangatartingo, i disagree, imprisoning them and showing them propaganda videos will not be effective.

Instead i think we should send them to labor camps and seperate them by sex so there is no new children they can raise. And so they cant spread their ideas to the general population.

[Xiao Banfa]

Instead i think we should send them to labor camps and seperate them by sex so there is no new children they can raise. And so they cant spread their ideas to the general population

I think this is a bit harsh. You are implying that they are in the camps for life, which I am not proposing. Also, not allowing them to have kids is a bit rough too.

[Delta]

The people&#39;s militia will very likely temporarily imprison those who can&#39;t be trusted (but aren&#39;t hostile enough to warrant killing), as long as material conditions allow for it. Once the great deal of the danger has cleared, the people will look at them on a case by case basis in order to judge whether they can be set free or not. I am guessing that the vast majority would be set free immediately.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:44 AM
tino rangatartingo, i disagree, imprisoning them and showing them propaganda videos will not be effective.

Instead i think we should send them to labor camps and seperate them by sex so there is no new children they can raise. And so they cant spread their ideas to the general population.

why not just steralise them?



<s>Gulags</s> Re-education camps? That&#39;s my favourite part of communism&#33; :rolleyes:

Actually I agree with Delta: imprisoning them for a short time, until they&#39;re no longer a threat, and letting them see for themselves how good things are on the outside is more likely to change their minds than a bunch of Stalin-esque "re-education" camps. Once the bourgeois see our system working they will want a part of it and not want to revert to capitalism. And if they do want to revert - well they&#39;ll be pretty much on their own because most people wouldn&#39;t want to and any rebellian would therefore be crushed by the people themselves.

[KC]

Usually reactionaries are just shot.

[Xiao Banfa]

Usually reactionaries are just shot.

Great, let&#39;s have a holocaust of reactionaries. Obviously my idea is too stalinist
let&#39;s be hitlerite instead. Fuck that.

[KC]

Great, let&#39;s have a holocaust of reactionaries. Obviously my idea is too stalinist
let&#39;s be hitlerite instead. Fuck that.


Listen. People that conspire to overthrow the state are already charged for treason and receive harsh penalties - in most countries that penalty is either life in prison or death. It&#39;s not "hitlerite" at all.

[Xiao Banfa]

Every reactionary doen&#39;t want to overthrow the state. And I don&#39;t believe in the death penalty.

[Marukusu]

Every reactionary doen&#39;t want to overthrow the state. And I don&#39;t believe in the death penalty.

I would rather have a lead bullet in my neck than being forced to work for my enemies and forced to watch their propaganda over and over again. But that&#39;s just me.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Tino [email protected] 22 2006, 06:55 AM
Every reactionary doen&#39;t want to overthrow the state. And I don&#39;t believe in the death penalty.
Reactionaries want to overthrow a worker&#39;s state, and that is what we are talking about.

Anyway, there won&#39;t be that many capitalist apologists after a revolution....You don&#39;t see people walking around in capitalist society calling for a restoration to Feudalism every day, now do you?

[drain.you]

sounds a little too much like stalin thinking, though i can see where you are coming from. guess it would be a little nicer than killing them.

[Messiah]

This thread is near criminal really. I love the part where the people proposing concentration camps chastise the guys proposing mass executions.

Anyway, I just wanted to reply to one thing:


This is a line from a bourgeois revolutionary with a bourgeois liberal outlook, it really has no bearing on us.

This kind of thinking is what gives all of us a bad name. Oh, that guy made a really great point, but he was a capitalist so nevermind that&#33; That&#39;s just idiocy. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely -- it&#39;s ture. And it doesn&#39;t matter who said it.

And course it has all the bearing in the world to us as revolutionaries, especially if we are here sitting propsing god damn prison camps for people who disagree with us. I really had hoped that people had learnt their lesson from some of the crap that happened in the USSR, but clearly lunacy is not reserved to right of the political specturm.

[Ol' Dirty]

Messiah, you are correct. Thank you for chiming in.


Some people have no understanding of what a revolution really is.

Are you going to sling mud at me, or say something important? If you are to do the former, then I suggest you shut up. :mellow:


The workers who are now repressed by a state run by the capitalist minority, will instead repress that capitalist minority with their own state.]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Oh wait, I guess you&#39;re going to call Ghandi a bourgoise revolutionary liberal too, eh? :huh:


Power corrpts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.


This is a line from a bourgeois revolutionary with a bourgeois liberal outlook, it really has no bearing on us.

No more repression, no more hate, no more pushing and shoving. Case closed.


A state being the control of legitimate armed force.

What you propose sounds like a police state. State reppresion of political minorities through the use of camps; destruction of freedom of speech rights... if that&#39;s Communism, call me a weak-kneed liberal, because that is simply un-ethical. :angry:


If the state has the right to send people to massive centers to be "reeducated" (which is merely a code word for tortured), what power don&#39;t they posses?


None.

:huh:


If it&#39;s a workers&#39; state that doesn&#39;t matter.

Stop romanticizing the working class.


You don&#39;t the working class to have unlimited power?

Need I repeat myself? :huh:


Why not take away freedom of speech, or impose a state religion?



There should be no "freedom of speech" for reactionaries and capitalists.

That sounds roughly like fascism.


Of course, absolute freedom of speech has not existed anywhere, ever in history.

Then let&#39;s correct our predecessors mistakes instead of going back to the fucking Dark Ages&#33; :angry:


It makes no sense to me.


Not suprising.

Not at all. You&#39;re plan sucks, of course I wouldn&#39;t understand it&#33; :rolleyes: How is a competant human being supposed to decypher your cryptic babble?

See? I can sling mud too. :D

[Janus]

I think it should be less about suppressing those who do not agree with us then trying to give them a basis or reason to be discontent with. Criticism shouldn&#39;t always be suppressed; the people can think for themselves. Obviously, a capitalist will definitely be discontent immediately following a revolution but I doubt people would really think that their alternative would be better. And introducing labor camps or re-education camps would become problematic once we needed to figure who would go to them and who would make these types of decisions.

[Hot2Trot]

Read this topic last night...

Had a thought today.

Why not a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, South Africa style? Anyone who wants to level an accusation of someone responsible for wrong-doing is free to do so... anyone responsible for wrong-doing in the previous regime is equally welcome to give testimony, with an offer of amnesty (not necessarily full and unconditional, but relatively complete).

It gets everything out in the open.

However, the main purpose of the commission is not punishment, but recognition. This sets a necessary precondition to &#39;dealing with&#39; reactionaries and functionaries of the old order.
It establishes a sword of damocles dangling over their head -- for now, the new order has no plans to do away with these relics -- and they are welcome to come participate in the civic life of the new system. However, if they should break away White Army style, we have plenty of understanding of their crimes and the nature of them - it is excellent for the purposes of justice and later propaganda, if necessary.

At the same time, it prevents me from levelling a false accusation at a neighbor and getting him locked up in a re-education camp, just because I want to marry his daughter and he&#39;s opposed (or similar excesses). It gives people the benefit of the doubt - assumes a certain basic willingness to participate - gives them a forum for airing grievances and making apologies. But it also establishes an intermediate step towards justice for the functionaries of the regime that came before.

[Xiao Banfa]

Fuck that.

I say we pre-empt the dangerous, hard headed reactionaries by slamming the bastards in a big gulag.

Upon completion of their sentence the secret police will be assigned to their case lest they plot against the state.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Are you going to sling mud at me, or say something important? If you are to do the former, then I suggest you shut up.

I&#39;m sorry my posts don&#39;t carry as much weight as yours, which are obviously well thought out and thoroughly communist. :lol:

What I said remains true. Alot of people on this board don&#39;t know what a revolution is. "A revolution is not a bed of roses" - F Castro . "Revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is..." - F Engels.


An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Oh wait, I guess you&#39;re going to call Ghandi a bourgoise revolutionary liberal too, eh?

I don&#39;t have to call him one.. he was one.. And not even a liberal on many issues. He was a racist who voiced support for Hitler, said the English shouldn&#39;t have fought back against the Nazis and said the Jews should be happy about the holocaust.

Great guy.

It&#39;s not a question of some idealist notions.. If you study historical materialism, you understand how the transformation of society works. In the case of the transfer from capitalism to socialism, it requires the working class to seize power, forge a workers&#39; state and use it to supress class antagonisms. The capitalists&#39; won&#39;t give up their positions of power without a life or death struggle, and calling for any pacifistic nonsense is equal to calling for mass suicide or worse.


No more repression, no more hate, no more pushing and shoving. Case closed.

:lol: Right... Is there gravity in your world?

There can be no peace until there is justice, there can be no justice until capitalism is overthrown.


This kind of thinking is what gives all of us a bad name. Oh, that guy made a really great point, but he was a capitalist so nevermind that&#33; That&#39;s just idiocy. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely -- it&#39;s ture. And it doesn&#39;t matter who said it.

Who&#39;s "us"? I&#39;m a communist. Whatever you are (and I can take a wild guess), I want no part of it.

Again, materialists know that it does matter who said it, and it what context it was said. In this case, it was said by a bourgeois revolutionary who justified the use of repression by the new bourgeoisie when it took power. He wasn&#39;t saying it was bad that absolute power corrupts, he was saying that they shouldn&#39;t feel bad for being "corrupted" when they take power, because it was natural. The book "The Prince", which the quote comes from, is a call for tyranical rule -- and maintaining that rule by any means.

So yeah, it does matter who said it, why he said it, when he said it, etc. But I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll just keep throwing it around since you think it reinforces your idealist nonsense.. why should reality matter?

But ideas don&#39;t exist outside of material reality, and they are a reflection of that reality. Being determines conciousness, and Machiavelli&#39;s conciousness was a reflection of his reality.


What you propose sounds like a police state. State reppresion of political minorities through the use of camps; destruction of freedom of speech rights... if that&#39;s Communism, call me a weak-kneed liberal, because that is simply un-ethical.

:rolleyes: Where to start... I think you should do some reading before you start throwing around all this bullshit.

What I "proposed" (actually defined) was a state. I said "A state being the control of legitimate armed force." That&#39;s what a state is. Research it some time. It&#39;d be great to at least have a slight idea as to what you&#39;re discussing.

You speak as if freedom of speech exists under capitalism. In case you didn&#39;t know, freedom of the press only exists for those who can afford a press.


:huh:

You asked what power the workers&#39; state doesn&#39;t posses, and I answered. None. Socialism = absolute rule of the working class.


Stop romanticizing the working class.

WTF. Please do some reading before you come here with this nonsense. The working class is the only revolutionary class in capitalism. When the working class rules, that&#39;s called socialism.


Need I repeat myself?

No, it&#39;s pretty clear you&#39;re against workers&#39; power. I was being rhetorical.


That sounds roughly like fascism.

Except for not at all. Again, please research the meaning of terms before you use them. Fascism is a specific mode of capitalist rule.


Then let&#39;s correct our predecessors mistakes instead of going back to the fucking Dark Ages&#33;

Once again, I must urge you to study. The point I was making was that absolute freedom of speech doesn&#39;t and can&#39;t exist while a state exists. When there is a state there can be no freedom. When there is freedom, there can be no state. This is why we fight for communism, which is stateless, classless society. The only way to achieve it is for the working class to seize power, create a socialist society, and suppress class antagonisms.

[Messiah]

Who&#39;s "us"? I&#39;m a communist. Whatever you are (and I can take a wild guess), I want no part of it.

Oh right, I forgot. Communists and anarchists are mortal enemies who share nothing in common, with no major overlap whatsoever&#33;


Again, materialists know that it does matter who said it, and it what context it was said. In this case, it was said by a bourgeois revolutionary who justified the use of repression by the new bourgeoisie when it took power. He wasn&#39;t saying it was bad that absolute power corrupts, he was saying that they shouldn&#39;t feel bad for being "corrupted" when they take power, because it was natural. The book "The Prince", which the quote comes from, is a call for tyranical rule -- and maintaining that rule by any means.

Yes, which is exactly why in our modern language the word "corrupts" is taken to mean, to better, taken as a psitive right? I know damn well where the line is from, the point is that the message which it has taken on, namely, to be weary of power and authority that goes unchecked is a fundamentally sound and it doesn&#39;t matter who said it.


So yeah, it does matter who said it, why he said it, when he said it, etc. But I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll just keep throwing it around since you think it reinforces your idealist nonsense.. why should reality matter?

Here&#39;s some idealist nonesense for you: blow me. I&#39;m so sick you of you self-reighteous assholes who might as well be quoting the Bible judging by the way you go on about your demi-Gods, and their theories and concepts as if they all defecated genius.

I really don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass that you can&#39;t think for yourself, and that the only way you can interpret the world is to fetch your copy of Chairman&#39;s Mao&#39;s Do It Yourself Revoutionary Lexicon in order to see what your dear leaders have to say about any given situation.

We were talking about a very simple concept: concentration camps. We had supposed "communists" adovcating crimes against humanity, adovcating secret police and god knows what ever else in the name of...well I guess "freedom". That is vile, it is disgusting, and it displays a profound misunderstanding of what communism is supposed to be about. And above all else it displays the fact that some people still, sadly, believe that the KGB was a Marxist ideal.

I really, really don&#39;t care who said, why they said it, if they were skull fucking a four year old as they said it; the idea and the message remains. Liberty, freedom and self-detirmination above all else, isn&#39;t that what communism is about? Not god damn labour camps.


But ideas don&#39;t exist outside of material reality, and they are a reflection of that reality. Being determines conciousness, and Machiavelli&#39;s conciousness was a reflection of his reality.

Very good, now get to the part where communism advocates a secret police, a police state and the imprisionment and torture of millions; better yet, quote Marx and point out where he called for that part?

[Xiao Banfa]

I really don&#39;t give a rat&#39;s ass that you can&#39;t think for yourself, and that the only way you can interpret the world is to fetch your copy of Chairman&#39;s Mao&#39;s Do It Yourself Revoutionary Lexicon in order to see what your dear leaders have to say about any given situation.

I had no idea the FPM were maoist&#33;

And the title "Dear Leader" doesn&#39;t exist in maoist vocab anyway.


We were talking about a very simple concept: concentration camps. We had supposed "communists" adovcating crimes against humanity, adovcating secret police and god knows what ever else in the name of...well I guess "freedom". That is vile, it is disgusting, and it displays a profound misunderstanding of what communism is supposed to be about. And above all else it displays the fact that some people still, sadly, believe that the KGB was a Marxist ideal.

This simple, pragmatic idea (re-education camps) doesn&#39;t involve any kind of crime against humanity.

Mate, every state has a secret police- they gather intelligence. I&#39;ve heard of anarchists spying on fash. It&#39;s a very effective means of gathering intelligence.

Except those anarchos doing the spying were not accountable to any kind of democratic center (cause everything has to be "autonomous" with you guys).

Were the CIA a jeffersonian ideal?

Fuck, I don&#39;t get how the KGB are seen to be the most evil bastards there are.

[Ol' Dirty]

Are you going to sling mud at me, or say something important? If you are to do the former, then I suggest you shut up.


I&#39;m sorry my posts don&#39;t carry as much weight as yours, which are obviously well thought out and thoroughly communist. :lol:

The obviousness eludes me... :rolleyes: I wonder why. No I don&#39;t. I know that it&#39;s because you&#39;re shooting blanks.

Let me guess, shooters are petty-bourgoise anarcho-stalinists, right? :lol:


What I said remains true. Alot of people on this board don&#39;t know what a revolution is. "A revolution is not a bed of roses" - F Castro . "Revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is..." - F Engels.

These things aren&#39;t suddenly universal, objective truths as soon as Castro or Engels said them. While I still agree that a revolution is never easy and always comes at a price -as with everything- I still oppose the idea of rounding political dissenters up and coercing them into believing something they don&#39;t want to believe. Bullshit theory.


An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Oh wait, I guess you&#39;re going to call Ghandi a bourgoise revolutionary liberal too, eh?


I don&#39;t have to call him one.. he was one.. And not even a liberal on many issues. He was a racist who voiced support for Hitler, said the English shouldn&#39;t have fought back against the Nazis and said the Jews should be happy about the holocaust.

Great guy.

Again, prove that he was a racist.


It&#39;s not a question of some idealist notions.. If you study historical materialism, you understand how the transformation of society works. In the case of the transfer from capitalism to socialism, it requires the working class to seize power, forge a workers&#39; state and use it to supress class antagonisms. The capitalists&#39; won&#39;t give up their positions of power without a life or death struggle, and calling for any pacifistic nonsense is equal to calling for mass suicide or worse.

What I&#39;m saying is this: post-revolution, here will be no one to supress&#33; A majority of people will have already realized that revolution is the solution. The elite would be annihilated, clearing a path for proletarian power. Concentration camps are unnecesary.


No more repression, no more hate, no more pushing and shoving. Case closed.


:lol: Right... Is there gravity in your world?

Well, assuming that we&#39;re in the same universe... :rolleyes:


There can be no peace until there is justice, there can be no justice until capitalism is overthrown.

Yeah, but concentration camps are inherently unjust, proletarian or not. POW camps, mybe, civilian camps, hell no.


This kind of thinking is what gives all of us a bad name. Oh, that guy made a really great point, but he was a capitalist so nevermind that&#33; That&#39;s just idiocy. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely -- it&#39;s ture. And it doesn&#39;t matter who said it.


Who&#39;s "us"? I&#39;m a communist. Whatever you are (and I can take a wild guess), I want no part of it.

You have a real cooperation problem, don&#39;t you?

Without solidarity there is no revolution, without revolution no justice.


You speak as if freedom of speech exists under capitalism.

Okay, firstly, shut the fuck up. Secondly, I&#39;m fucking saying that though there is no real freedom of speech under capitalism, so we should make it under communism, you fucktard.

I have no reason to bother with you.