Why will next time be different?

[Orion999]

QUOTE (Orion999 @ Sep 7 2006, 08:30 PM)
Another interesting point to note is that way more people have been murdered in the name of communism than facism in the last century. The combined murder rate among the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Pol pot, Cuba, and whatever other mass murdering communists regimes I forgot, is in the 100's of millions.


If I kill everyone I know in the name of Brad Pitt, does that then mean that you can blame him for these deaths? Of course not.

Using the name of something does not mean you are using it correctly, and I see you have 80 posts so I am supposing that by now, you know what communism actually is, and are thus aware that none of these are communist?




Yes I am aware of this claim. But since everytime a communists revolution takes place these mass murdering dictatorships is what emerges, so I therefore consider them the same thing. The reason your "true" communism never emerges is because it is a Utopian dream.

How is the next revolution going to be any different? Is the risk of turning the United States into the next Stalinist slave society really worth the risk?

I will be very impressed if you can answer these questions

[YSR]

Easy.

Anarchism.

[encephalon]

Yes I am aware of this claim. But since everytime a communists revolution takes place these mass murdering dictatorships is what emerges, so I therefore consider them the same thing. The reason your "true" communism never emerges is because it is a Utopian dream.

How is the next revolution going to be any different? Is the risk of turning the United States into the next Stalinist slave society really worth the risk?

I will be very impressed if you can answer these questions

This is one big logical fallacy, not to mention ahistorical.

The Roman Republic failed; does this mean that the US will follow in its footsteps?

Athens fell--does this mean democracy will never work?

For all intents and purposes, the french revolution failed miserably in achieving its goals.. in fact, it ended with a dictatorship.--does this mean that all bourgoisie revolutions failed? No--if that were true, the United States wouldn't exist in the first place.

Revolutions happen. That is an undeniable fact. Whether they succeed or fail depends on a massive plethora of variables, and have little to do with revolutions of the past.

[Orion999]

The Roman Republic failed; does this mean that the US will follow in its footsteps?

Athens fell--does this mean democracy will never work?


Where did I say anything like this? Of coarse American power will probably fall one day just like every other power has fallen.



For all intents and purposes, the french revolution failed miserably in achieving its goals.. in fact, it ended with a dictatorship.--does this mean that all bourgoisie revolutions failed? No--if that were true, the United States wouldn't exist in the first place.

Yes some revolutions succeed and some don't. The question is since EVERY communist revolution has failed and resulted in corrupt dictatorships refusing to reliquish power and murdering or jailing all dissenters why will the next one succeed in setting up a Utopia?

[Orion999]

and is it worth the risk of setting up a Stalinists slave society?

[Herman]

Yes some revolutions succeed and some don't. The question is since EVERY communist revolution has failed and resulted in corrupt dictatorships refusing to reliquish power and murdering or jailing all dissenters why will the next one succeed in setting up a Utopia?

Do you know how many revolutions in the 19th century happened which wanted a liberal democracy? Do you how many of them failed? Should I believe that because most liberal revolutions failed, the next one will also fail? Do you see now the mistake in your logic?

Do you know what a utopia is? Have you read Marxs' works? Did you know he agreed with you in that communism is no utopia? Did you know that EVERYONE here agrees with you that communism is no utopia and utopias will never exist? Did you know that communism in itself never existed? Did you know that communism is the result of a long process which can take hundreds of years?

[encephalon]

Where did I say anything like this? Of coarse American power will probably fall one day just like every other power has fallen.

The Soviet Union lasted over 70 years; the United states has only lasted less than twice that long (since the civil war, not the first american revolution; anyone who thinks the US today is the US of 1800 seriously needs to read their history). If you're saying that the soviet revolution failed, then I can only assume that you mean it failed over the course of time--just like every revolution throughout human history. So perhaps you'd like to refine your argument?


Yes some revolutions succeed and some don't. The question is since EVERY communist revolution has failed and resulted in corrupt dictatorships refusing to reliquish power and murdering or jailing all dissenters why will the next one succeed in setting up a Utopia?

And until the Dutch revolution, EVERY bourgeoisie revolution had entirely failed up to that point. Up to the American Revolution, EVERY republican revolution failed and was replaced by a dictatorship that murdered and jailed dissenters. So what you're saying, in effect, is the exact same thing a noble in 1500 would say: since all republics and "democracies" have ended in dictatorship up to this period in time, all of them must necessarily end in dictatorship. Which I think is absolutely true, but since you don't: it's a logical inconsistency on your behalf..

The fact is, the risk of another "stalinist" dictatorship doesn't matter; all of history consists of dictatorships and oligarchies, from sumer to the US. If another arises in which classes are bolstered rather than abolished, we will fight it.

But if you think that the United States is a wonderful land of democracy and freedom, then you might as well just end your argument now, since you very obviously don't understand the nature of reality or the opposing argument.

And as said above, communism is not utopian. Most communists in the past dedicated a large part of their lives fighting utopianism. Our goal is for greater equality and greater freedom, not perfection.

[Rollo]

One of the main questions about anarchism is why will people keep working once money is abolished? I've herd a few answers but I'm always looking for more to add to an argument.

[encephalon]

One of the main questions about anarchism is why will people keep working once money is abolished? I've herd a few answers but I'm always looking for more to add to an argument.

The same reason people worked before money: either they had to in order to keep living, or they genuinely loved whatever they were doing.. which is really the exact same reason people work today.

[spIro]

Another interesting point to note is that way more people have been murdered in the name of communism than facism in the last century.

Of course, but because the fascism was crushed down soon enough. Say whatever you want, but i'm coming from ex-socialictic republic (yugoslavia - nowadays republic of slovenia), and am maybe still under control of totalitar education, but i'm still convinced that comunism was a medicine against facism.

[spIro]

And btw - what about people which died and still dying in name of capitalism all over the world, and nobody do anything against it !

[Matty_UK]

I think if the Communist Manifesto had never been written, we would actually be pretty likely to be genuinely socialist or communist by now. The communist movements were all in third world countries and the aim was often anti-Imperialist more than revolutionary but the popularity of progressive ideals that were imported from the west meant that communism became an ideal mixed in with liberation from the west; it is also interesting to note that before trying to emulate the Russian revolution China had tried in 1905 with the Wuchang Uprising to emulate the French revolution; the consequences were disastrous mostly because the rural population was still too large for a market system to work and there wasn't the industry to really trade much commodities; as a consequence warlords began to rule various provinces and a brutal dictatorship under Chiang Kai Shek came about before being defeated by Communist rebels under Mao.

But communism failed in China for much the same reason; there was a severe lack of industry other than farming which meant that no worker's institutions that could create a completely democratic and temporary working class vanguard had been set up. In communist jargon that means that there was no class consciousness; in short it was a conventional rebellion with confused revolutionary ideas thrown in, but prior to the necassary conditions that were beginning to exist in the west. This means that an entity seperate to the workers had to be in charge of government, which could only be the state and could only lead to the creation of a seperate and priveledged bureaucratic class.

As I said about the Communist Manifesto being a historical liability to communists, the ideas within were adopted prematurely in countries that were unstable due to imperialism or other factors making it highly discredited.

Hope this has answered your question adequately.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 06:47 PM

One of the main questions about anarchism is why will people keep working once money is abolished? I've herd a few answers but I'm always looking for more to add to an argument.

The same reason people worked before money: either they had to in order to keep living, or they genuinely loved whatever they were doing.. which is really the exact same reason people work today.
Ok, imagine 20 million people in the world hate working, the only reason they work is to get the money to buy food, power etc. Take away the thing thye need to work for why do they work anyway? I've got my own arguments against this but am interested in yours :P.

[Publius]

This is one big logical fallacy, not to mention ahistorical.

The Roman Republic failed; does this mean that the US will follow in its footsteps?

Almost certainly.

At least, I don't think the US Empire will last forever.

That's both ahistorical AND asinine.

The US will certainly eventually crumble or change into something entirely different. It's inexerable.



Athens fell--does this mean democracy will never work?

Yeah. I mean, according to you guys all modern democries are failing.

An utter condemnation of the system, no?



For all intents and purposes, the french revolution failed miserably in achieving its goals.. in fact, it ended with a dictatorship.--does this mean that all bourgoisie revolutions failed? No--if that were true, the United States wouldn't exist in the first place.

THe US that is now an Imperialistic power, right?

How's that a victory?



Revolutions happen. That is an undeniable fact. Whether they succeed or fail depends on a massive plethora of variables, and have little to do with revolutions of the past.

The hell you say?

I thought Marxism was 'historical materialism'?

[KC]

Yeah. I mean, according to you guys all modern democries are failing.


That is because they're all bourgeois democracies.



For all intents and purposes, the french revolution failed miserably in achieving its goals.. in fact, it ended with a dictatorship.--does this mean that all bourgoisie revolutions failed? No--if that were true, the United States wouldn't exist in the first place.

Are you kidding? It didn't fail at all. It accomplished exactly what the liberal bourgeoisie wanted it to (i.e. the seizing of power from the old aristocracy and consolidating it in their own hands).


I thought Marxism was 'historical materialism'?

Everything Encephalon said in that quote fits with the Marxist method except for the part that says "and have little to do with revolutions of the past." That is obviously crap.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Rollo+Sep 8 2006, 04:16 PM--> (Rollo @ Sep 8 2006, 04:16 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 06:47 PM

One of the main questions about anarchism is why will people keep working once money is abolished? I've herd a few answers but I'm always looking for more to add to an argument.

The same reason people worked before money: either they had to in order to keep living, or they genuinely loved whatever they were doing.. which is really the exact same reason people work today.
Ok, imagine 20 million people in the world hate working, the only reason they work is to get the money to buy food, power etc. Take away the thing thye need to work for why do they work anyway? I've got my own arguments against this but am interested in yours :P. [/b]
For starters, they won't even need to work: With all the jobs that'll disappear when capitalism is abolsihed (jobs that become obsolete), there'll be much less of a need for everyone to work. Not even taking into account all the technological advancements that will make even more jobs obsolete.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 8 2006, 07:44 PM


For all intents and purposes, the french revolution failed miserably in achieving its goals.. in fact, it ended with a dictatorship.--does this mean that all bourgoisie revolutions failed? No--if that were true, the United States wouldn't exist in the first place.

Are you kidding? It didn't fail at all. It accomplished exactly what the liberal bourgeoisie wanted it to (i.e. the seizing of power from the old aristocracy and consolidating it in their own hands).
"Egalité, liberté, fraternité" -Ring a bell?

[Rollo]

Originally posted by s3rna+Sep 9 2006, 06:23 AM--> (s3rna @ Sep 9 2006, 06:23 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:16 PM

[email protected] 8 2006, 06:47 PM

One of the main questions about anarchism is why will people keep working once money is abolished? I've herd a few answers but I'm always looking for more to add to an argument.

The same reason people worked before money: either they had to in order to keep living, or they genuinely loved whatever they were doing.. which is really the exact same reason people work today.
Ok, imagine 20 million people in the world hate working, the only reason they work is to get the money to buy food, power etc. Take away the thing thye need to work for why do they work anyway? I've got my own arguments against this but am interested in yours :P.
For starters, they won't even need to work: With all the jobs that'll disappear when capitalism is abolsihed (jobs that become obsolete), there'll be much less of a need for everyone to work. Not even taking into account all the technological advancements that will make even more jobs obsolete. [/b]
Paint me red and call me jesus the carpenter, that's exactly what I was stabbing at. Those 20 million people with shitty jobs are most likely telemarketer sort of jobs or the hard to do jobs which will change if they are being 'paid' as much as everybody else.

[DreamerDeceiver]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:33 AM

QUOTE (Orion999 @ Sep 7 2006, 08:30 PM)
Another interesting point to note is that way more people have been murdered in the name of communism than facism in the last century. The combined murder rate among the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Pol pot, Cuba, and whatever other mass murdering communists regimes I forgot, is in the 100's of millions.


If I kill everyone I know in the name of Brad Pitt, does that then mean that you can blame him for these deaths? Of course not.

Using the name of something does not mean you are using it correctly, and I see you have 80 posts so I am supposing that by now, you know what communism actually is, and are thus aware that none of these are communist?




Yes I am aware of this claim. But since everytime a communists revolution takes place these mass murdering dictatorships is what emerges, so I therefore consider them the same thing. The reason your "true" communism never emerges is because it is a Utopian dream.

How is the next revolution going to be any different? Is the risk of turning the United States into the next Stalinist slave society really worth the risk?

I will be very impressed if you can answer these questions
None of those countries led an educated movement so they never had a chance at being Communist, because very few of the people knew a thing about Communism. U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Pol pot, Cuba, and the rest were all revolutions completely done by a small group of people. Incidentally, not one of those movements ever had any intentions of installing real Communism anyway and that is obvious. The assumptions your arguement operates on Orion are simply false.

[KC]

"Egalité, liberté, fraternité" -Ring a bell?

The goal of the revolution was for the consolidation of power in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Many things were said at the time to get the lower classes to support them.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 09:38 AM

Another interesting point to note is that way more people have been murdered in the name of communism than facism in the last century.

Of course, but because the fascism was crushed down soon enough. Say whatever you want, but i'm coming from ex-socialictic republic (yugoslavia - nowadays republic of slovenia), and am maybe still under control of totalitar education, but i'm still convinced that comunism was a medicine against facism.
Then why did so many voters in Italy and Germany switch their votes from the communists to the fascists, prior to 1922 and 1934, and vice versa after 1945?

Why does the BNP of the UK draw its strength (such that it is) from the voters who had previouly backed Labor?

Why do so many fascists (Mussolini, Mosely, Le Pen, Quisling, Petain, Rockwell) have a socialist pedigree?

Communism is not medicine against fascism. They are two virus's from the same family.

[Avtomatov]

Why does the BNP of the UK draw its strength (such that it is) from the voters who had previouly backed Labor?


Because at first they saw Labour as a solution to their problems. Then Labour shifted to the right and failed to produce results. And now the BNP presents itself as a solution to the working class. Unfortunately some workers beleive they will solve their problems


Communism is not medicine against fascism. They are two virus's from the same family.
No, they are both presented as solutions to the working class's problems. The difference is that Fascism is the complete opposite of a solution and is misleading. Communism is the only solution.

[encephalon]

Ok, imagine 20 million people in the world hate working, the only reason they work is to get the money to buy food, power etc. Take away the thing thye need to work for why do they work anyway? I've got my own arguments against this but am interested in yours

The fact is, those needs that they work for don't exist without their labor (where applicable, at least). So if the entire world decides to stop working, the exact same thing would happen as if the entire world stopped working this moment: we would starve and die, period. People know that work needs to be done in order to provide ourselves with those commodities that suit us, regardless of whether money plays a role. People today want money because it's a means to an end (at least, workers do; money is an end in itself to capitalists); likewise, labor is a means to the creation of our needs and wants. The only difference is you're taking out the middle man.



Almost certainly.

At least, I don't think the US Empire will last forever.

That's both ahistorical AND asinine.

The US will certainly eventually crumble or change into something entirely different. It's inexerable.


You're misrepresenting my argument, however; the argument made to which I responded claimed that since all communist revolutions have failed, all subsequent communist revolutions will necessarily fail. That is akin to saying that since the roman revolution, french revolution, etc. failed, so too would the american revolution--which it did not. It illustrates the fault in thinking that since communist revolutions failed in the past, they will always fail in the future. It's logically unsound, since the same concept cannot be extended to bourgeoisie revolutions.

Now if a capitalist here thinks the American Revolution indeed was an absolute failure in establishing the bourgeoisie of the states as the rulers instead of the king in england, then that changes things entirely. But I don't think that's a claim that anyone here is making.


THe US that is now an Imperialistic power, right?

How's that a victory?

It's a victory for the capitalists. They reap immense profits from it. The american revolution was not a revolution by and for the working class.


The hell you say?

I thought Marxism was 'historical materialism'?



Everything Encephalon said in that quote fits with the Marxist method except for the part that says "and have little to do with revolutions of the past." That is obviously crap.

Perhaps my wording was a bit off; by "little to do with," I mean that the material circumstances are so far removed today from the russian revolution, chinese revolution, etc. that to make a comparison between the two would be quite superfluous. A revolution in 2020 will not be a simple extension of 1917. The world is different, the people are different and the revolution will be entirely different from previous revolutions.

[encephalon]

The goal of the revolution was for the consolidation of power in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Many things were said at the time to get the lower classes to support them.

And ended with Napoleon.. a couple times, in fact, which consolidated the power into the hands of an emporer. This was not in the interest of the bourgeoisie, but of reactionary elements.

[Matty_UK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:53 AM
Communism is not medicine against fascism. They are two virus's from the same family.
Wtf?

Communism is a classless and stateless society ran by federations of trade unions, and the transition is characterised by the working class seizing control of industry that was previously owned privately by the bourgoisie class or state.

Fascism is a society where the wealthy bourgoisie class centralises in the form of corporatist syndicates who have dictatorial control over the workers, with the help of an authoritarian state which carries out murders of communists, socialists, anarchists who are a threat to the bourgoisies control of production.

It's capitalism on the defensive, no more, and it is idiotic to claim any similarity to communism. If you claim that it is similar because socialism has a planned economy and fascism has a regulated economy, remember that capitalism is nothing to do with free-market; capitalism is private control of production and that is all. (and communism is a participatory gift economy and not centrally planned anyway)

[spIro]

Then why did so many voters in Italy and Germany switch their votes from the communists to the fascists, prior to 1922 and 1934, and vice versa after 1945?

OK, now tell me why the loudest, most proud winners were those who joined to partisans (in Yugoslavia) in May 45? Why naive people (majority) always support the winning side? Why?



Why do so many fascists (Mussolini, Mosely, Le Pen, Quisling, Petain, Rockwell) have a socialist pedigree?

Because all their power depended on propaganda and so was with their effort for people.

And btw. Maybe comunism really was not ideal way against facism but was the only one. Say whatever you want but comunism successfully destroy facism (as much as could).

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Matty_UK+Sep 11 2006, 09:38 AM--> (Matty_UK @ Sep 11 2006, 09:38 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 02:53 AM
Communism is not medicine against fascism. They are two virus's from the same family.
Wtf?

Communism is a classless and stateless society ran by federations of trade unions, and the transition is characterised by the working class seizing control of industry that was previously owned privately by the bourgoisie class or state.

Fascism is a society where the wealthy bourgoisie class centralises in the form of corporatist syndicates who have dictatorial control over the workers, with the help of an authoritarian state which carries out murders of communists, socialists, anarchists who are a threat to the bourgoisies control of production.

It's capitalism on the defensive, no more, and it is idiotic to claim any similarity to communism. If you claim that it is similar because socialism has a planned economy and fascism has a regulated economy, remember that capitalism is nothing to do with free-market; capitalism is private control of production and that is all. (and communism is a participatory gift economy and not centrally planned anyway) [/b]

These are the textbook interpretations, to be sure. The reality in practice is never quite the same.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:17 AM

Why does the BNP of the UK draw its strength (such that it is) from the voters who had previouly backed Labor?


Because at first they saw Labour as a solution to their problems. Then Labour shifted to the right and failed to produce results. And now the BNP presents itself as a solution to the working class. Unfortunately some workers beleive they will solve their problems


Communism is not medicine against fascism. They are two virus's from the same family.
No, they are both presented as solutions to the working class's problems. The difference is that Fascism is the complete opposite of a solution and is misleading. Communism is the only solution.
Yes. The Labor has been moving Right for well over a decade now. Voters of a traditional Labor bent are growing annoyed and are either pushing for change within the party, or are seeking out other parties which will salve their wounds. And that party is the BNP.

Those workers may be wrong in choosing BNP over Labor, but that needs to be seen as a partisan argument, not an objective statement.

Objectively, people on the ground do not, and have never seen, this great chasm between communism and fascism. That division exists only in the mind of the partisan.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 11:33 AM

Then why did so many voters in Italy and Germany switch their votes from the communists to the fascists, prior to 1922 and 1934, and vice versa after 1945?

OK, now tell me why the loudest, most proud winners were those who joined to partisans (in Yugoslavia) in May 45? Why naive people (majority) always support the winning side? Why?



Why do so many fascists (Mussolini, Mosely, Le Pen, Quisling, Petain, Rockwell) have a socialist pedigree?

Because all their power depended on propaganda and so was with their effort for people.

And btw. Maybe comunism really was not ideal way against facism but was the only one. Say whatever you want but comunism successfully destroy facism (as much as could).

Communism leveled Europe to defeat fascism. Perhaps efforts should be made prior to that point, eh?

Communists and fascists were always switching sides in germany when both parties were small. It had nothing to do with victory or lack thereof.

The claim of "propaganda" in explaining the Quislings of the world is nothing more than partisanship on your part.

[spIro]

The claim of "propaganda" in explaining the Quislings of the world is nothing more than partisanship on your part.

Where are you coming from ZX3? You have no idea about situation under german ocupation during WW2, right? I mean - how can you compare partisans with quislings. It was the Yugoslav goverment who BETRAY people and join Yugoslavia to 3rd Reich, against people's will.
Partisans were only young guys which didn't want to submit to destiny. They run away and start fight against it. Three my grandmother's brothers were partisans, two of them had fall. Don't say that they were betraitors, they just fought for people's will.