Anti-Communists

[Avtomatov]

You stupid anti-communists need to read The State and Revolution by lenin. You fools have no clue what democracy really is. I hear people like DJ-TC and leftyhenry talking about democracy as it relates to socialism. They have got no clue. Bourgeoise "democracy" is not real democracy. What a bunch of pathetic anti-communist liberals. Democracy is the oppression of the minority bourgeoise by the majority proletariat. A socialist state is a STATE. States use all sorts of terror to oppress the non-ruling class. We are not liberals, we do not have liberal morality.


"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev


You damn crypto-liberals are immoral. Get of the message board and join the liberal party. You stand in our way, you stand in the way of revolution. Revolution is not just the overthrow of the bourgeoise state, but the entire socialist period is a revolution itself. You anti-communists seem to think violence and terror is only justified before the revolution, to aid the overthrow of the bourgeoise. You shy away from using state terror to insure the revoltuion. The revolution cannot triumpth until communism has been established. All methods to insure the revolution are justified using communist morality. If you do not think so, then you are not a communist. You are a liberal.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I agree :)

[ZX3]

Hear! Hear!

You are correct! That is the only way to enact socialism.

Hooray for Joe Stalin! For mao tse-Tung! For Pol Pot! They knew the way to logically apply socialism. all others are absurd.

So after 100 milion murders by the socialist states (we will ignore the National Socialists in the count since Hitler's application of socialism was not quite as logical as was the application offered by his contemporary in Moscow) what explains the failure? Insufficient numbers killed? Wrong methods of killing?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 09:08 PM
So after 100 milion murders by the socialist states (we will ignore the National Socialists in the count since Hitler's application of socialism was not quite as logical as was the application offered by his contemporary in Moscow) what explains the failure? Insufficient numbers killed? Wrong methods of killing?
Capitalist states have killed many times more than that. How do you explain their failure? :rolleyes:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Sep 30 2006, 03:10 AM--> (black banner black gun @ Sep 30 2006, 03:10 AM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 09:08 PM
So after 100 milion murders by the socialist states (we will ignore the National Socialists in the count since Hitler's application of socialism was not quite as logical as was the application offered by his contemporary in Moscow) what explains the failure? Insufficient numbers killed? Wrong methods of killing?
Capitalist states have killed many times more than that. How do you explain their failure? :rolleyes: [/b]
weak! weak! weak!

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:08 AM
Hear! Hear!

You are correct! That is the only way to enact socialism.

Hooray for Joe Stalin! For mao tse-Tung! For Pol Pot! They knew the way to logically apply socialism. all others are absurd.

So after 100 milion murders by the socialist states (we will ignore the National Socialists in the count since Hitler's application of socialism was not quite as logical as was the application offered by his contemporary in Moscow) what explains the failure? Insufficient numbers killed? Wrong methods of killing?
Pol Pot was a primitivist.

Youre numbers are false.

The USSR failed because Stalin failed to restore proletarian democracy before he died, thus allowing the revisionists and the capitalists to take power. The suspension of democracy was justified, but it should have been restored.

As for China, it is not clear yet if China has failed as a socialist state.

[D_Bokk]

Yes, I am quite fed up with these "moral" communists as well.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 07:13 PM
The revolution cannot triumpth until communism has been established. All methods to insure the revolution are justified using communist morality. If you do not think so, then you are not a communist. You are a liberal.
What the hell is "communist morality"?

[violencia.Proletariat]

You fools have no clue what democracy really is. I hear people like DJ-TC and leftyhenry talking about democracy as it relates to socialism. They have got no clue. Bourgeoise "democracy" is not real democracy. What a bunch of pathetic anti-communist liberals.

To my knowledge DC-TC has not called for participation in a bourgeois republic. In fact he advocates direct control over the means of production by the proletariat. Please explain to me how this "liberal" or related to republicanism?


You anti-communists seem to think violence and terror is only justified before the revolution, to aid the overthrow of the bourgeoise.

Actually thats not true at all. Many anarchists on this board support class suppression after the revolution, myself included.


The revolution cannot triumpth until communism has been established.

And yet you call for state power :wacko: Kind of seems like the opposite direction.'


All methods to insure the revolution are justified using communist morality.

I thought communists were materialists, we leave moralism for the religious.

[Avtomatov]

To my knowledge DC-TC has not called for participation in a bourgeois republic. In fact he advocates direct control over the means of production by the proletariat. Please explain to me how this "liberal" or related to republicanism?

You misinterpreted what i said.

When I said Bourgeoise "democracy" is not true democracy, I was implying that his view of democracy is that it respect the "rights" of the bourgeoise. This is anti-democratic. Lenin specifically says that democracy is the oppression of the minority (bourgeoise), by the majority (proletariat). The socialist transition has a state, Lenin tells us what the state is. The state is a tool for the opression of a class. Why should the severity of opression be limited. Lenin never says it should be. Lenin says armies, police, prisons, etc... are tools of the state. By saying that the socialist state is justified, he is saying those tools of oppression are justified, because those things constitute the state. So we are justified when we use those methods to oppress the bourgeoise, we are justified if we send them to jail, workcamps, censor them, even kill them. Remember, as revolutionaries, the only morality is that which brings the revolution closer to success. The only use for the bourgeoise is perhaps for labour power.


Actually thats not true at all. Many anarchists on this board support class suppression after the revolution, myself included.

I said anti-communists, are anarchists anti-communists? I know alot of them are. D_Bokk isnt one of them.


And yet you call for state power Kind of seems like the opposite direction.'

Nice logic. So in your mind, the more power the proletariat have over the bourgeoisie, the farther away we are from communism.


I thought communists were materialists, we leave moralism for the religious.

"The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates
the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him,
morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the
revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its
way."
--Sergey Nechayev

You should have re-read my first post if you didnt understand it's subtleties. It is saying that the revolutionary rejects the existing social morality, and in its place we have a revolutionary morality. Your argument is just semantics. We only use the word "morality", because there is no other word to describe it. Maybe if you dont understand replace the word morality for goodness, or something like that.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I was implying that his view of democracy is that it respect the "rights" of the bourgeoise.

Where does he suppor the bourgeoisie? Claiming that his non-support of the soviet state as pro bourgeoisie is just plain childish.


Nice logic. So in your mind, the more power the proletariat have over the bourgeoisie, the farther away we are from communism.

In reality, the more power you put in the hands of bureacracy the less power the proletariat has. I think in todays times, it is entirely illogical to take decision making power from proletarian organizations (workers councils) and put that power in the hands of state "representatives." This is why there is no reason for marxist leninists to destroy the state and mold it to their own form, because it's the same kind of subjugation.


It is saying that the revolutionary rejects the existing social morality, and in its place we have a revolutionary morality. Your argument is just semantics. We only use the word "morality", because there is no other word to describe it. Maybe if you dont understand replace the word morality for goodness, or something like that.

I'm pretty sure I understand what your trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that communist revolutionaries do not have a moral system. We fight for what is in the rational interests of our proletarian class. Now if you are applying the terms "right and wrong" based on what makes rational sense for our class to do, then thats fine. However, do not call this moralism, because its not about morals its about material reality.

[D_Bokk]

Morality is based on majority consensus, which is mostly influenced by the media, religion and the laws which govern. Supporting an attack which may kill innocent people, but aids in the revolutionary cause would be considered evil by the public.

We communists shouldn't be thwarted by this morality (ie. public opinion.) Not only will it lead us no where, but no matter how hard we try otherwise - we will be painted as evil. That's how the media, government and religious officials work. So appealing to the masses by denouncing militant actions is reactionary to the core.

Why wouldn't the masses want communism? Honestly answer that question.

Irregardless of whom we support, or what we do - the proletariat should always have the want to have control over their means of production. Therefore, no matter how brutal of an action we support, the natural progression towards communism will not faulter. We must, however, be careful to make sure these actions do promote revolution in some way and are not senseless murder. Do not simply denounce something because many people died, analyze the situation and determine the reasons behind the attack and how it effects the communist movement.

By supporting (and maybe partaking in...) anti-Imperialist militancy, we're only further promoting the final goal: communism. I strongly believe that so long as imperialism exists, the Western proletariat will never become revolutionary. No one has been able to put forth a logical argument stating that communism can be achieved in the West without the utter and complete destruction of imperialism.