Dissenter Vs Aeturnal Narcosis [Archive]

Aeturnal Narcosis

5th December 2006, 17:35

Originally posted by The [email protected] 05, 2006 12:46 pm
LSD disagrees, as do I. You are simply a free-market reformer with a model that is impossible to set up and impossible to control. We are all to be bourgeoise?
true, somewhat, that i would like to reform what we have now. it's a "every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" thing. i think reforming would be the first step toward communism: slowly change capitalism into a minor stage of socialism while we prepare for the revolution.

i pointed out in a debate i'm having with jazzratt that the bourgeois are too strong for a revolution to start any time very soon: if we start with revolts and strikes, they (the bourgeois) will use their influence over the government to force us back to work and destroy the possibility of continuing our revolution. we need to get whatever little bits of control we can as to weaken their influence before we declare an all out war on capitalism.

Whom is the revolutionary class that shall fight for this?

and, i think that the revolutionary class that'll help push us from the socialistic system i propose into communism is the workers as a whole, lead by the politically minded workers (such as a communist or socialist political party)

You are a state-capitalist?

by no means.

i'm opposed to command economies (state control of the economy), and i don't support allowing a government to control us (even in economic terms): the government should exist to protect us, and we should control the government.

Jazzratt

5th December 2006, 17:43

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 04, 2006 08:54 pm
i doubt most of the socialists here even read this board, or even care if anyone has been restricted... at least not until they make the mistake of disagreeing with the tyrant lsd.
The "tyrant" LSD is held fully accountable to the CC. Also it's fairly hard to be a "tyrant" when your power stretches to one message board, where you don't even technically have absolute power and can be recalled.

Comrade Phil

5th December 2006, 23:15

Aeturnal Narcosis, I do not support the CC's decision to restrict you. I completely disagree with your idea of some sort of "free market socialism", however, you should not have been restricted for proposing it. Rather than simply dismissing your idea by restricting you, it should have been proven false through logic and reason. You seem sincere in your desire for the creation of a communist society, and should therefore be given another chance.

In the interest of democratic debate here on RevLeft, I believe your restriction should be lifted. If the left ever wants to obtain any sort of unity, we cannot simply separate ourselves from leftists with questionable ideas (even if they are really bad ones), instead through debate we must show the error of their ways. Doing otherwise, will only lead to sectarianism and disorganisation.

RebelDog

6th December 2006, 00:50

and, i think that the revolutionary class that'll help push us from the socialistic system i propose into communism is the workers as a whole, lead by the politically minded workers (such as a communist or socialist political party)

The free-market is not socialism or communism. What you propose is a society that workers will fight to establish together in order that they go in to competition against each other in the market to sell their goods. Its a paradox. A working-class struggle to remove the ruling class will result in communism, not a hybrid of anarcho-capitalism and state capitalism. Who would be inspired to fight for your model? Proletarians will not have unity of action in order to establish a model that requires them to compete with one-another. Thats absurd.

You seem sincere in your desire for the creation of a communist society

The free-market is not and will never have anything to do with communist society. They are incompatable.

In the interest of democratic debate here on RevLeft, I believe your restriction should be lifted

He is a cappie who wants workers to sacrifice their lives to overthrow the bourgeoise and then keep the free-market. What is the point in that?

Aeturnal Narcosis

6th December 2006, 23:47

The free-market is not socialism or communism. What you propose is a society that workers will fight to establish together in order that they go in to competition against each other in the market to sell their goods. Its a paradox. A working-class struggle to remove the ruling class will result in communism, not a hybrid of anarcho-capitalism and state capitalism. Who would be inspired to fight for your model? Proletarians will not have unity of action in order to establish a model that requires them to compete with one-another. Thats absurd.

i have slightly altered my views since i started the topic... i think it would be an intermediate state between capitalism and communism. it has the driving force to create a strong economy so that when communism is established, it'll have a strong economic base beneath. if it doesn't have that, it'll fail (the soviets... week economy, no capitalism to build it up, no socialism to strengthen it, and communism failed)

The free-market is not and will never have anything to do with communist society. They are incompatable.

like i said... it could very well be a starting position. and it's not completely free market.

He is a cappie who wants workers to sacrifice their lives to overthrow the bourgeoise and then keep the free-market. What is the point in that?

are you kidding me? did you seriously say that I'm a capitalist who wants to overthrow the bourgeois?

RebelDog

7th December 2006, 16:52

it has the driving force to create a strong economy so that when communism is established, it'll have a strong economic base beneath.

Post revolution we must rapidly increase production to meet the needs of the global community. The free-market is not a tool that facilitates this as it encourages competition, artificial scarcity and a perversion of what commodities should be produced.

like i said... it could very well be a starting position. and it's not completely free market.

Who would decide when the transition to communism takes place?

are you kidding me? did you seriously say that I'm a capitalist who wants to overthrow the bourgeois?

Well you technically are not a capitalist if you don't own the means of production. You do however support the free-market which is the antitheses of the working class movement.
If the revolution took place tomorrow and the working class stated unequivocally that they wished to move to a communist society immediately, would you support them?

"The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.”
Karl Marx

Marx had it spot on there. Proletarian revolution installs co-operation, solidarty and selflessness. Unity of action changes people. The exploitative free market would be far from the minds of working people who have decided together to shape their own future.

Aeturnal Narcosis

7th December 2006, 18:23

Post revolution we must rapidly increase production to meet the needs of the global community.

if we wait until after the revolution to start a massive increase in production, we will have to wait for it to take full effect before any of us see the benefit of us. i'd like to see us use the dynamic of the free market under a socialist system so that communism has a strong economy to start with: it'll be one less thing we'll have to worry about after the revolution.

The free-market is not a tool that facilitates this as it encourages competition, artificial scarcity and a perversion of what commodities should be produced.

competition is what makes the free market so powerful and efficient. that's why i propose we allow it to continue into the socialist stage of human evolution: as i said, use the free market to strengthen the economy, use socialism to make it fair to the worker, then allow it to evolve into a communist economy (based on an eglaitarian distributive model, such as technocracy) when the time comes.

and by the way, under a free market system, it is the consumer who decides what is to be produced: if we demand it, they make it --> that's how they make money.

Who would decide when the transition to communism takes place?

when the time is right. when the working class is fully united and ready to take the next step, and when we have a strong economy to fall back onto (a violent revolution will cause an economic depression... we just have to make sure our economy is strong enough and flexible enough to handle the punch)

Well you technically are not a capitalist if you don't own the means of production. You do however support the free-market which is the antitheses of the working class movement.

not to disagree with you... but a capitalist is anyone who supports capitalism. the bourgeois are those who own the means of production. all bourgeois are capitalists, but not all capitalists are bourgeois.

and i support the free market as a means to ensure the working class movement (i.e., the revolution) doesn't fail as it did in the soviet union.

If the revolution took place tomorrow and the working class stated unequivocally that they wished to move to a communist society immediately, would you support them?

i would be one of the first to take to streets, at the front of the revolt, armed to the teeth with my fellow working class comrades, ready to strike

Marx had it spot on there. Proletarian revolution installs co-operation, solidarty and selflessness. Unity of action changes people. The exploitative free market would be far from the minds of working people who have decided together to shape their own future.

problem is: communism has the stigma of having been claimed as brethren to the soviet union. we're not going to get full support for a fullscale revolution right away, unless we can convince the mass of the workers that we're on their side. amerikkans aren't revolutionaries, they have bills to pay. but if we can get enough support to transition one step closer to communism, and prove that we're going to do it right this time, we'll be able to get the support needed to fully engage the bourgeois.

RebelDog

7th December 2006, 19:30

if we wait until after the revolution to start a massive increase in production, we will have to wait for it to take full effect before any of us see the benefit

Pre-revolution the workers will have no control over the means of production.

i'd like to see us use the dynamic of the free market under a socialist system so that communism has a strong economy to start with: it'll be one less thing we'll have to worry about after the revolution.

I cannot see how this is enforcable. What is to be done if workers refuse (like I would) to run factories to produce products for the free-market? What would you do when you found workers everywhere insisting that the produce, like the means, is socially owned and should be distributed free?

competition is what makes the free market so powerful and efficient.

Competition is what makes the free-market so inefficient. Due to the unpredictability and vagaries of the market the means of production are never used to capacity and resources are wasted. Even in a boom capitalism can only manage a fraction of what the means of production actually makes possible. Planned production can operate very near capacity and will have a fraction of the waste the free-market generates. The free-market is not a model of effeciency, that is a myth.

and by the way, under a free market system, it is the consumer who decides what is to be produced: if we demand it, they make it --> that's how they make money.

Workers will be competing with workers for a share of the market. They will be compelled to produce what makes a profit despite what their communities might need.

when the time is right.

What will be the markers for this? What if the workers that have forced their fellow workers in another factory out of business and are doing well, refuse to socialise output? The first disenfranchised workers would already be plotting to destroy this regime, who would stop them?

and i support the free market as a means to ensure the working class movement (i.e., the revolution) doesn't fail as it did in the soviet union.

The soviet union would not have been the soviet union had it had the free-market, it would have been the soviet-competition. The soviet union failed essentially because the proletarians did not have control.

i would be one of the first to take to streets, at the front of the revolt, armed to the teeth with my fellow working class comrades, ready to strike

Shouting the slogan 'the freer the market, the stronger we are'

problem is: communism has the stigma of having been claimed as brethren to the soviet union. we're not going to get full support for a fullscale revolution right away, unless we can convince the mass of the workers that we're on their side. amerikkans aren't revolutionaries, they have bills to pay. but if we can get enough support to transition one step closer to communism, and prove that we're going to do it right this time, we'll be able to get the support needed to fully engage the bourgeois.

That doesn't answer the question. People under such exceptional circumstances as taking that step forward, confronting the bourgeoise and believing in their own power to shape and run things, inherently pull together. Competition is an anathema to them.

Aeturnal Narcosis

8th December 2006, 20:04

Pre-revolution the workers will have no control over the means of production.

i'm talking about after the first part of the overall revolution.

I cannot see how this is enforcable. What is to be done if workers refuse (like I would) to run factories to produce products for the free-market? What would you do when you found workers everywhere insisting that the produce, like the means, is socially owned and should be distributed free?

when that time has come, it means that the workers are ready to push the revolution into its final stage and establish a communist community.

Competition is what makes the free-market so inefficient. Due to the unpredictability and vagaries of the market the means of production are never used to capacity and resources are wasted.

to that point, i agree. but competition, nonetheless, makes the free market efficient in that, every capitalist competes with every other capitalist: to make money, they have to increase efficiency, increase overall production, and find ways to fuck the other guy faster and harder than the other guy can. it creates efficiency (while, yes, at the same time, decreases efficiency via such things as false shortages), but it also creates an unfair situation to the worker.

the means of production are generally used to their fullest capacity: this is how the bourgeois accumulates wealth.

Even in a boom capitalism can only manage a fraction of what the means of production actually makes possible. Planned production can operate very near capacity and will have a fraction of the waste the free-market generates. The free-market is not a model of effeciency, that is a myth.

managed production has proven itself prone to failure. but proper managed production (i.e., production controlled by workers, rather than the government) has never been used.

what creates inefficiency in a free market is that they produce more than the people need. to compensate for this, they create myths of forthcoming shortages and speculated value so that the excess production is consumed. a worker managed system will make to the extent that the workers need, no more, no less. this is the reason that a *properly* managed economic system can be far more efficient than a free market system.

Workers will be competing with workers for a share of the market. They will be compelled to produce what makes a profit despite what their communities might need.

with workers (corporations) competing, production will increase. this will create a massive abundance of production that i believe is needed for the birth of the communist stage of evolution; this way, when communism is achieved, it'll have a good start, and won't have to strugle to meed the needs and wants of the people, as it did in the soviet union.

What will be the markers for this? What if the workers that have forced their fellow workers in another factory out of business and are doing well, refuse to socialise output? The first disenfranchised workers would already be plotting to destroy this regime, who would stop them?

the system i propose would be part of the first stage of the revolution: the longer, more peaceful part. it's temporary, and everyone involved in instigating the revolution (the workers) will understand that. the excess of good business is only meant to aid the purpose of communism, to help the revolution move along properly, not to accumulate wealth for individuals (the exact opposite goal of the revolution).

refusal to socialise, or even further, refusal to communalise, would be treated as treachery to the communal goal, especially if it comes within the ranks of our own (the workers). these corporations (worker operated) would be shut down or distributed among other competitors in the same industry. the jobs have to exist, not the companies - the companies are temporary constructs meant to fuel the engine of the revolution.

The soviet union would not have been the soviet union had it had the free-market, it would have been the soviet-competition. The soviet union failed essentially because the proletarians did not have control.

that's one of the reasons: the communist party acted as a class of elite monopolists over industry.

but it also failed because the economy was weak from the beginning. what i'm getting at, is that the russians didn't go through successive capitalist and socialist states; they jumped headfirst into communism with a weak economy. you can't start out on a bad foot.

Shouting the slogan 'the freer the market, the stronger we are'

yeah right. i've already pointed out, several times infact, that a completely free market will not work. there has to be established laws and regulations. but i feel that a socialised free market will help the goal of communism in the long run. here in amerikka, we've had plenty of time to develope the free market, and already have a relatively large abundance of the products we will need to ensure that communism start on good footing. we possibly could skip the introductory free market socialism and go straight to advanced socialism (wherein the free market is essentially gone in most fields).

That doesn't answer the question. People under such exceptional circumstances as taking that step forward, confronting the bourgeoise and believing in their own power to shape and run things, inherently pull together. Competition is an anathema to them.

but we can't do it right away. if we take industry into our own hands and immediately communalise it, we'll end up going the same path as the soviets. the fact that the path to communism is a long slow one, consisting of several intermediate steps is fundamental to marxist thought. we can't just jump from competition to freedom. we have to take steps from a completely competitive market (what we have now) to a need/want-based production economy.

Aeturnal Narcosis

9th December 2006, 19:44

but anyway... back to the original topic at hand - my user status.

we want the same thing: communism.

we just have different ideas as to how it can be achieved. this is what i tried to point out to LSD, he just refused to listen... well, actually, i think he refused to lose a debate, and thus took the easy way out.

so... why am i still restricted to the right-winger board? i'm no less communist than you, or lsd, or jazzratt is, nor am i any worse of a communist than you, lsd, or jazzratt... to say that i am would be suggesting there is such things as an elite class within communism itself... and eletism and communism are essentially the exact opposite.

RebelDog

10th December 2006, 05:54

we want the same thing: communism.

That is not true I'm afraid. The free-market is incompatable with communism or the fight to attain it. The free-market, with no exceptions, leads to a class whose interests lie in the continuation of the free-market. If a revolution comes tomorrow those who wish to preserve the free-market, or reform it, would be seen as liberals and enemies of proletarian revolution. I reject all models of descrimination, exploitation and privilege.

we just have different ideas as to how it can be achieved. this is what i tried to point out to LSD, he just refused to listen... well, actually, i think he refused to lose a debate, and thus took the easy way out.

You have completely, stubbornly misunderstood marxism. The revolutionary proletariat will overthrow capitalism, not the reformist proletariat.

so... why am i still restricted to the right-winger board? i'm no less communist than you, or lsd, or jazzratt is, nor am i any worse of a communist than you, lsd, or jazzratt... to say that i am would be suggesting there is such things as an elite class within communism itself... and eletism and communism are essentially the exact opposite.

I am not elitist. I have spent time debating with you hoping you might see things from another angle. Your idea is to have a revolutionary proletariat fighting for more free-market. Good luck trying to sell that to people who have risen to end the savage free-market that drives their misery and despair. Sorry, OI is where ideas like that belong.

Aeturnal Narcosis

10th December 2006, 14:30

we want the same thing: communism.

That is not true I'm afraid.

my ultimate goal is communism. i believe it can be best achieved by allowing the free market to exist into the socialist stage of the revolution, because if we completely destroy it suddenly it would create chaos and economic dissaster, and thus communism would have the same start as it did in the soviet union.

The free-market is incompatable with communism or the fight to attain it. The free-market, with no exceptions, leads to a class whose interests lie in the continuation of the free-market. If a revolution comes tomorrow those who wish to preserve the free-market, or reform it, would be seen as liberals and enemies of proletarian revolution. I reject all models of descrimination, exploitation and privilege

of course it is. my point is that we have to allow it to change overtime from a capitalist free market to a communist economy based on fair distribution.

You have completely, stubbornly misunderstood marxism. The revolutionary proletariat will overthrow capitalism, not the reformist proletariat.

no, i understand marxism, and i understand that we have to learn from the mistakes communists throughout history have made. capitalism will be overthrown in the revolution, but the free market will just change, at least in the early stages of the revolution. as the revolution progresses, so will the transition from free market to distributive economy.

all i'm saying is that it can't happen all at once. that's as marxist as it gets: evolution.

... evolution is a process that takes time.

I am not elitist. I have spent time debating with you hoping you might see things from another angle.

i do, but believe me, not from debating with you. give jazzratt the applause for that.

but as far as elitism goes... you're suggesting that you're a better communist than i because i have a different idea of how it can be established. if you believe i'm any less communist than yourself, then you're an elitist.

Your idea is to have a revolutionary proletariat fighting for more free-market.

no, my idea is to socialise the free market (i.e., put it under the control of the proletariat) until it has sufficiently developed into a distributive economy.

Good luck trying to sell that to people who have risen to end the savage free-market that drives their misery and despair.

no socialist will support the free market, true. but what socialist would support completely destroying the economy so we can start from scratch? if communism is to survive, it has to start out with a strong economy. destroying the free market suddenly will destroy the economy, and we'll fail.

my only point is that we have to slowly change from one stage to the next, alter the capitalist free market to a socialist one, then allow that free market to fade and give way to a distributive economy.

this is what i've been saying all along, you're just not listening.

Sorry, OI is where ideas like that belong.

naturally, because if it doesn't exactly match your communist ideas down to the 't,' then it must not be communist at all, right?

Dimentio

10th December 2006, 16:16

Rather, the conclusion I reach is that the embryos of the new system, as well as control of the institutions, must have been achieved before the revolution.

Dimentio

11th December 2006, 09:04

On the other hand, Aeturnal Narcosis should probably not be restricted in that way, because he do not try to subvert, post right-wing propaganda and break the rules of the ordinary forums. Instead, he is just speculating. I think it is a bit Galileo to put different ideas, that tangers capitalism but are clearly more inspired by market socialism on the OI. I do not agree with his ideas, and think that they are poorly developed, but I cannot see him write anything that would position him in the OI.

Just my five joules.

Aeturnal Narcosis

12th December 2006, 16:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 09:04 am
On the other hand, Aeturnal Narcosis should probably not be restricted in that way, because he do not try to subvert, post right-wing propaganda and break the rules of the ordinary forums. Instead, he is just speculating. I think it is a bit Galileo to put different ideas, that tangers capitalism but are clearly more inspired by market socialism on the OI. I do not agree with his ideas, and think that they are poorly developed, but I cannot see him write anything that would position him in the OI.

Just my five joules.
thank you, friend.

i'm as communist as anyone in the CC. i simply propose a different way of achieving communism.

rather than supporting the marxist idea of abruptly breaking down the free market system and restructuring the entire economy on a distributive basis, i adhere moreso to the maoist economic policy of using the free market (in a socialised form) to our advantage, at least until we have sufficiently radicalised the working class and are completely prepared to begin the fianl stage of economic revolution whereby we will allow the free market to fade and give way to a distributive economy; this will be the last stage in our ascencion into a communist workers' paradise.

i think that the first stage of the revolution will be established on a socialised free market economy, and the later stages will be based on distributive economies (such as a technocratic or autogestion/workers'-self-management system).

just because we differ in thought as to how communism should be established doesn't mean that either of us are any less communist than the other. we both want the same thing: a classless, stateless communist society, operated by the workers, where all people are equal, prosperous, liberated, and safe to live their lives, free from economic exploitation.

RebelDog

12th December 2006, 17:36

Aeturnal Narcosis, I never implied your heart wasn't in the right place. :)

we will allow the free market to fade

I cannot envisage how the free-market can "fade". The free-market is operated with the interests of the capitalist class as paramount. Any attempt to change this will invariably lead to violence as it has in the past. Those who own the means of production will not give it up without a fight. If you remove the bourgeoise and replace them with workers, producing goods in competition with other workers, to sell on the free market, then the current situation will only return. The free-market means class society whatever circumstances it operates in and the class that owns the means of production must be confronted to change anything. If you give the hierarchy a shake-up it does no good if all the reasons we had a hierarchy in the first place still remain.

D_Bokk

12th December 2006, 18:34

Has this kind of stuff been happening forever, or just recently? I've noticed a lot of communists being restricted for dumbass reasons ever since I was in August.

Seems like a power game for a lot of the posters here. They're too scared of real revolution so they set up some fake "communist" hierarchy to escape from the reality that they're cowards. I suggest anyone who views communism as more than a game, they stop posting here; it's full of jokers who have a power complex. Shit, this is the last thread I post on this pathetic forum.

I wouldn't be surprised if all of the "activists" here who're "struggling" for communism are liars.

t_wolves_fan

12th December 2006, 18:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 06:34 pm
Has this kind of stuff been happening forever, or just recently? I've noticed a lot of communists being restricted for dumbass reasons ever since I was in August.

Seems like a power game for a lot of the posters here. They're too scared of real revolution so they set up some fake "communist" hierarchy to escape from the reality that they're cowards. I suggest anyone who views communism as more than a game, they stop posting here; it's full of jokers who have a power complex. Shit, this is the last thread I post on this pathetic forum.

I wouldn't be surprised if all of the "activists" here who're "struggling" for communism are liars.
:lol:

And I won't be surprised when you're voting Republican in 30 years.

D_Bokk

12th December 2006, 19:37

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan
And I won't be surprised when you're voting Republican in 30 years.
Highly unlikely.

Aeturnal Narcosis

13th December 2006, 18:39

Aeturnal Narcosis, I never implied your heart wasn't in the right place. :)

so then why am i still restricted? we have the same overall goals for mankind. isn't it the point of a leftist internet forum to bring different leftist ideas together?

I cannot envisage how the free-market can "fade". The free-market is operated with the interests of the capitalist class as paramount.

it is now. if the socialised free market i propose is established in the early stages of the revolution, the capitalist class will be too busy trying to ensure their future existence to push their interests economically, especially considering that the capitalists will have absolutely no say in how the temporary, revolutionary socialised free market economy is run.

Any attempt to change this will invariably lead to violence as it has in the past. Those who own the means of production will not give it up without a fight. If you remove the bourgeoise and replace them with workers, producing goods in competition with other workers, to sell on the free market, then the current situation will only return.

i'm proposing a TEMPORARY continuation of a form of the free market. why is it you can't see this? the point of it isn't to create a new bourgeoisie out of the revolutionary proletariat, it's to allow a smoothe transition into the distributive economy and to keep the economy operational during the revolution. i have said this at least 10 times now.

The free-market means class society whatever circumstances it operates in and the class that owns the means of production must be confronted to change anything. If you give the hierarchy a shake-up it does no good if all the reasons we had a hierarchy in the first place still remain.

and i never said that a purely classless society would be created; pure classlessness won't exist until pure communism is established, and pure communism is the end result of a successful revolution, which will push us through socialism, then into communism. this is unadulterated marxism.

i said that the SOCIALISED free market would aid in pulling all of the classes closer together, toward the end of creating a classless society. classlessness cannot be created overnight. classlessness, just like communism, is a process. this is unadulterated marxism.

so, explain to me again why the hell i'm still restricted. in what way am i not a communist or revolutionary proletarian? in what way am i a capitalist or reactionary bourgeois?

Aeturnal Narcosis

15th December 2006, 19:23

dissenter. i want an answer to my previous post.

this is all bullshit.

LSD restricted me because i said that socialism can support a form of the free market economy. i supported that fact (it wasn't all that hard; when you get down to the basic definition of socialism, there is nothing that says it can't).

since then, i have altered my opinion to that a socialised free market will be developed during the revolution to ensure that the economy remains operational until the revolution is over, at which point an economy based on a communist distributive system will be developed.

there is absolutely no reason for me to be restricted. in NO way whatsoever am i a capitalist or bourgeois. i am a revolutionary communist.

it seems to me that we communists have learned a few things from the great purges.... but maybe not.

RebelDog

15th December 2006, 21:38

dissenter. i want an answer to my previous post.

Rather demanding aren't thou.

LSD restricted me because i said that socialism can support a form of the free market economy. i supported that fact (it wasn't all that hard; when you get down to the basic definition of socialism, there is nothing that says it can't).

LSD restricted you. Shouldn't you take that up with him?
Socialism and the free-market are diametrically opposed. I am tired explaining that a revolutionary proletariat will destroy the free market.

at which point an economy based on a communist distributive system will be developed.

Why not, without delay?

there is absolutely no reason for me to be restricted. in NO way whatsoever am i a capitalist or bourgeois. i am a revolutionary communist.

Support for the free-market gets people restricted on revleft. There is no third way here.

Aeturnal Narcosis

15th December 2006, 23:02

LSD restricted you. Shouldn't you take that up with him?
Socialism and the free-market are diametrically opposed. I am tired explaining that a revolutionary proletariat will destroy the free market.

lsd is stalin. do you think stalin would have let leon trotsky back in the soviet union, even if leon trotsky proved himself right beyond a doubt?

besides, you seemed interested in why i was restricted and how i might get my normal status back; does the commie club actually mean anything here?

and i haven't said that the free market and socialism can exist together in a long time. i've been making the point that we need to slowly dismantle the free market on the path to socialism.

Why not, without delay?

because the revolution might be long. we need to take it step by step, such as, first putting the working class in charge of the economy, then communalising property, then making the distribution of needs based on a planned system, then taking down the remainder of the free market, piece by piece, and replacing it with a distributive economy. this is the process of the economic revolution. the only factor determining how much delay is involved will be the progress of the governmental and cultural revolution, which, i believe will follow suit immediately as the economic revolution begins.

Support for the free-market gets people restricted on revleft. There is no third way here.

i no longer support the free market. if i supported it, why would i propose that we dismantle it?

why do i keep getting the feeling that i'm going to have to close my account and start over?

RebelDog

16th December 2006, 06:51

lsd is stalin. do you think stalin would have let leon trotsky back in the soviet union, even if leon trotsky proved himself right beyond a doubt?

Do you think LSD is going to come at you with an ice pick?

besides, you seemed interested in why i was restricted and how i might get my normal status back; does the commie club actually mean anything here?

You call yourself a revolutionary communist. I'm trying to get you to drop this fetish with the free-market because then you would be a revolutionary communist. Then I would help you get back to normal member status. Trust me, your free-market orientation means you will rightly stay in OI. People on this board want a new world, not some reformed old one. You must understand that if the proletarians of this world rise up in revolution then the free-market is doomed. You misunderstand the unstopable power for radical, wholesale change that would have. The world revolution will happen and be successful when the proletariat acts to enmancipate itself. When this happens the proletariat will socialise the economy immediately with no one able to stop it. This will enable the rapid rise in production which is essential.

and i haven't said that the free market and socialism can exist together in a long time. i've been making the point that we need to slowly dismantle the free market on the path to socialism.

That happens in cycles all the time when goverments nationalise/privatise industry. If the collectivisation of industry is a good model why is inequality and descrimination in the distribution of goods through the free-market an acceptable system. Workers would still be alienated from their products. The poor would go unfed.

because the revolution might be long. we need to take it step by step, such as, first putting the working class in charge of the economy, then communalising property, then making the distribution of needs based on a planned system, then taking down the remainder of the free market, piece by piece, and replacing it with a distributive economy. this is the process of the economic revolution. the only factor determining how much delay is involved will be the progress of the governmental and cultural revolution, which, i believe will follow suit immediately as the economic revolution begins.

Why hold back. We have waited long enough. Do you trust the working class to run society?

i no longer support the free market. if i supported it, why would i propose that we dismantle it?

You have already stated previously that you would drop your fetish for the free-market and fight with the workers should they rise up and begin socialising the economy. So drop your free-market preservation fetish because the workers will always act to collectivise the means of production and distribution in a workers revolution.

why do i keep getting the feeling that i'm going to have to close my account and start over?

I think that would get you banned, so I advise against it.

Aeturnal Narcosis

17th December 2006, 15:30

Do you think LSD is going to come at you with an ice pick?

he wouldn't, himself... but i reckon he would send a mexican assassin to do it.

You call yourself a revolutionary communist. I'm trying to get you to drop this fetish with the free-market because then you would be a revolutionary communist.

all i'm saying is that there is more than one way to go about the revolution. we have to take things as they come... if that means we have to take arms and completely destroy the socieoeconomic and cultural structure of the world in one sudden movement, then that's how we have to do it. but if we can avoid it, and progressively change things over time, piece by piece, then we should at least try it.

i'm not suggesting the socialised free market as the only way, just one possible way. and i'm not suggesting at all that, if we do go about it in the slower, progressive way, that the free market will last. it won't. i'm saying that there's a possibility that it can help us achieve our ultimate goal.

Trust me, your free-market orientation means you will rightly stay in OI

i never said it would be permanent. i said that we shouldn't change suddenly. if i said it would be permanent, then i would be market economy oriented.

People on this board want a new world, not some reformed old one.

i'm not a revisionist communist. although i can often relate to revisionists and liberals, they don't have the ultimate goal of a free world in mind.

You must understand that if the proletarians of this world rise up in revolution then the free-market is doomed. You misunderstand the unstopable power for radical, wholesale change that would have. The world revolution will happen and be successful when the proletariat acts to enmancipate itself. When this happens the proletariat will socialise the economy immediately with no one able to stop it. This will enable the rapid rise in production which is essential.

good point. but nonetheless, i have to ask: how do you suggest we operate the economy during the revolution? the revolution will probably not be a short one, and the mass of the proletariat will be too busy defending the revolution and oblitering the bourgeoisie to operate a planned economy...

That happens in cycles all the time when goverments nationalise/privatise industry. If the collectivisation of industry is a good model why is inequality and descrimination in the distribution of goods through the free-market an acceptable system. Workers would still be alienated from their products. The poor would go unfed.

i never said it is. i said that, with socialisation of the economy, we can sustain ourselves through the revolution. if we break down the economy completely at the beginning of the revolution, we will have chaos and millions could go hungry during the revolution, and, but the end of the revolution, there could be so much disorganisation, that it would take generations to get it back to normal.

as well, i said that necessities, such as food, will be provided for everyone as they need, and that the necessity of housing would be communalised: the entire community owns all the homes, with each resident occupying them as they need; no one would have to pay for their homes, since they, as part of the community, already own them.

Why hold back. We have waited long enough. Do you trust the working class to run society?

yes, and, as i said, the first step to putting the workers in charge of the economy could be socialising the free market.

You have already stated previously that you would drop your fetish for the free-market and fight with the workers should they rise up and begin socialising the economy. So drop your free-market preservation fetish because the workers will always act to collectivise the means of production and distribution in a workers revolution.

naturally.

but as i said, there is more than one way we can go about socialisation. if the majority of my working class comrades chose to change it all suddenly, i would support them. if they chose to go about my method, and change it bit by bit as the revolution goes on, i would support them.

I think that would get you banned, so I advise against it.

well, that is dumb. i need a clean slate.

then again, i could just log in as one of the moderators that i know has an easy password and unrestrict myself... they say, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself :)

... but i'd rather prove myself and earn it.

Aeturnal Narcosis

20th December 2006, 21:24

.... no rebuttle?

RebelDog

21st December 2006, 05:37

he wouldn't, himself... but i reckon he would send a mexican assassin to do it.

You aint that important.

all i'm saying is that there is more than one way to go about the revolution. we have to take things as they come... if that means we have to take arms and completely destroy the socieoeconomic and cultural structure of the world in one sudden movement, then that's how we have to do it. but if we can avoid it, and progressively change things over time, piece by piece, then we should at least try it.

That is how we have to do it. There is no other way, the bourgeoise are not going to say, "there are the means of production, take them", they must be wrenched violently from their grasp. There is no point in spilling all the blood to keep the free-market, I'd rather stay at home. The refromists of the late 19th and 20th century have all been proved wrong, socialism has not been established evolutionarily.

i never said it would be permanent. i said that we shouldn't change suddenly. if i said it would be permanent, then i would be market economy oriented.

You support the free-market over the collectivisation of the economy, that is an opposition view here. Don't keep appealling to me, I agree that your ideas are in opposition to revleft.

i'm not a revisionist communist. although i can often relate to revisionists and liberals, they don't have the ultimate goal of a free world in mind.

Niether do you. The free-market world is an enslaved world. Bill Gates could say he supports world communism but lets have the free-market for a while more. Should I trust his intentions?

but as i said, there is more than one way we can go about socialisation. if the majority of my working class comrades chose to change it all suddenly, i would support them. if they chose to go about my method, and change it bit by bit as the revolution goes on, i would support them.

Then join New Labour or the US Democrats and wait a million years for nothing to happen.

yes, and, as i said, the first step to putting the workers in charge of the economy could be socialising the free market.

If the free-market can be 'socialised' the devil can be converted to christianity. You are pissing against the wind using a model of exploitation, inequality and economic anarchy to bring socialism.

well, that is dumb. i need a clean slate.

then again, i could just log in as one of the moderators that i know has an easy password and unrestrict myself... they say, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself smile.gif

... but i'd rather prove myself and earn it.

Don't muck about or they will ban you for even threatening such action, joking or otherwise. Drop the reformist notions and you should get back to the many forums on REVOLUTIONARY left.

Aeturnal Narcosis

30th December 2006, 23:18

one thing i realised while revolutionaryleft was down and i was debating in comunistleague... most communists agree that the change should be sudden. naturally, i support my comrades. although my personal views my differ very slightly, ultimately, it is the community as a whole that is important; in this case, it is the leftist community. it is what the mass of us want, it is what the mass of us gets.

but another thing i realised... revleft is full of children. and worse than that, it is full of closed-minded children.

on communist league, if you disagree, your views are debated openly. naturally, capitalists are put in a restricted forum, but the communists, socialists, syndicalists, anarchists, etc. are allowed, even encouraged, to debate their different points openly. i suppose communist league actually realises the point of a leftist internet forum: to debate leftist ideas. not all of us agree on everything to the 't.' that's why we come together - we can share our opinions, ideas, philosophies, and concepts with one another and debate them as equals.

as i said: we all want the same thing. we may have different ways of going about it, but in the end, we are all leftists. you restrict me because i contribute my leftist ideas. they encourage me to contribute my leftist ideas.

RebelDog

31st December 2006, 00:25

You are by simple definition not a communist as you support the free-market. If this place doesn't suit you then I understand in the same way a social-democrats forum wouldn't suit me.

Drop the free-market fetish and I'll support your unrestriction. One of the first steps toward calling oneself a communist should be the realisation that the earths resources belong to one and all.

Oh and by the way I'm certainly not a child, my best years are probably behind me. :(

Aeturnal Narcosis

31st December 2006, 02:37

You are by simple definition not a communist as you support the free-market

i haven't said that i support the free market in a real long time. i maintain that, depending on the pace of the revolution, there might be a necessity to allow it to continue in a socialised form until the violence is over. if i supported the free market, then why the fuck would i support the revolution? i don't support the free market - i support the communal economy. my point was that the revolution might be long, so we might have to utilise the free market as a temporary institution to support ourselves through the revolution because we're not going to have time to plan and operate an entire economy while we're hunting the bourgeoisie resistance.

but as i said, it's not what i, as an individual communist thinks that's important. what's important is the communist community. we have to act as a democratic union of workingclass revolutionaries; when the time comes, if all the majority of us support completely destroying the free market all at once, then i will throw my chips in with that notion.

so once again, i DO NOT SUPPORT THE FREE MARKET

Oh and by the way I'm certainly not a child, my best years are probably behind me. :(

well, unfortunately, most of the "leftists" here act like children. "you can only join my fort if you do exactly as i say and think exactly like me."

so, since mao zedong and leon trotsky didn't have the exact same communist philosophies as karl marx, mao zedong and leon trotsky were therefor not really communists. i get it... internetcommunism is just plain pure hypocrisy.

we have the same goal... i just think there's more than one way to go about achieving it. but then again, i'm the open minded one.

i tell you what.... bring everyone from the cc in on this one... if the majority of them believe that i should be restricted, then i'll just plain go away. i guarantee that any open minded communist will agree that there might be different ways to maintain ourselves during the revolution.

Aeturnal Narcosis

5th January 2007, 16:08

no rebuttle?

why do you keep skirting around the subject?

cenv

6th January 2007, 00:14

Hmm... not to get myself involved in this, but in my opinion, Aeturnal Narcosis should be unrestricted. I don't think we should be so dogmatic as to simply restrict him for thinking there should still be competition among collectively run factories. True, this contradicts traditional Marxist thinking, and yes, I think it's a bad idea, but this forum is Revolutionary Left. Aeturnal Narcosis is both revolutionary and a leftist. I know this as well as the fact that he's quite pro-worker from his posts on Communist League.

Just for the record, my first reaction to what he had to say when he came over to the Communist League forums was that he was an idiot that refused to let go of the idea of capitalism. While there are aspects of his politics that I utterly disagree with, I don't think he deserves to be restricted, and I think that his views may change if we debate with him in a civilized manner and let him continue learning and thinking.

Just my two cents.

RebelDog

6th January 2007, 06:50

While there are aspects of his politics that I utterly disagree with, I don't think he deserves to be restricted, and I think that his views may change if we debate with him in a civilized manner and let him continue learning and thinking.

He does deserve to be restricted in my opinion. However, he is a stand-up guy compared to the restricted, cappie scum-bags that he has to mix with in this place. He needs to drop the free-market fetish, no self-respecting revolutionary should have anything good to say about the market and should reject it totally. If he drops the free-market stuff then I don't see any reason why he should be restricted. I am not going to debate with him any more on this issue, I've tried and failed to win him round.

I have debated with him in a civilized manner at all times. This board will not tolerate pro-free-market tendencies in the main forums because its a revolutionary forum, it would not be a revolutionary forum if it did tolerate such tendencies it would just be awash with liberals.

Aeturnal Narcosis

6th January 2007, 20:19

so essentially, what you're saying is this:

A) i support the worker revolution, but i'm not a revolutionary because i think there will be a transitional period between the capitalist free market and communist distributive economy; this transitional period IS the revolution, which i support, but evenso, i'm still not a revolutionary.

B) i'm a capitalist because i support the communist revolution.

jesus fucking christ, man... what kinds of crystalline powders have you been insuflating?

...

fuck it.

communistleague has this place beat hands down.

cenv

7th January 2007, 01:22

Originally posted by The [email protected] 06, 2007 06:50 am

While there are aspects of his politics that I utterly disagree with, I don't think he deserves to be restricted, and I think that his views may change if we debate with him in a civilized manner and let him continue learning and thinking.

He does deserve to be restricted in my opinion. However, he is a stand-up guy compared to the restricted, cappie scum-bags that he has to mix with in this place. He needs to drop the free-market fetish, no self-respecting revolutionary should have anything good to say about the market and should reject it totally. If he drops the free-market stuff then I don't see any reason why he should be restricted. I am not going to debate with him any more on this issue, I've tried and failed to win him round.

I have debated with him in a civilized manner at all times. This board will not tolerate pro-free-market tendencies in the main forums because its a revolutionary forum, it would not be a revolutionary forum if it did tolerate such tendencies it would just be awash with liberals.
He's not a liberal though, and he doesn't really support the free market to the extent that you seem to think. He said that he wants competition between collectives controlled by the workers as a transitional stage. Although I do think implementing that idea would derail a communist revolution, his ideas really aren't as liberal as you seem to think.

RebelDog

7th January 2007, 05:30

He's not a liberal though, and he doesn't really support the free market to the extent that you seem to think. He said that he wants competition between collectives controlled by the workers as a transitional stage. Although I do think implementing that idea would derail a communist revolution, his ideas really aren't as liberal as you seem to think.

I know he's not a liberal, did I accuse him of being one? I merely pointed out that if support (in any way) for the free-market was tolerated outside of OI on these forums then it would turn in to place with lots of liberals as members. Is that untrue?

Competition between collectives, after a proletarian revolution, in the free market is a betrayal of that self same revolution and would see class instantly re-introduced when the first workers who couldn't compete went to the wall. A return to capitalism would be the inevitable and disasterous result. In fact its not that major a shift from capitalism, just a change of what individuals make up the ruling class. To believe that a proletarian revolution would/should extend the life of the free-market is absurd anyway.

Aeturnal Narcosis

so essentially, what you're saying is this:

A) i support the worker revolution, but i'm not a revolutionary because i think there will be a transitional period between the capitalist free market and communist distributive economy; this transitional period IS the revolution, which i support, but evenso, i'm still not a revolutionary.

B) i'm a capitalist because i support the communist revolution.

How would it be any easier or better for the communist revolution to keep the free-market (for any period of time) when the proletariat has taken power. What aspect of the free-market is so essential? You haven't explained this.

Aeturnal Narcosis, you can have the CC discuss your restriction if you wish. It would clarify things possibly and you would have an answer once and for all. Why don't you write the reasons you think you should be unrestricted here (or pm them to me)and I'll start a thread in the CC. You seem to blame me for your continuing restriction and think that I have been taking drugs because I don't support your stance.

Rawthentic

7th January 2007, 22:40

I don't understand. Whats the need for competition between collectives when production is for human need? It betrays cooperation.

Aeturnal Narcosis

8th January 2007, 20:48

first of all, i don't blame you, i blame LSD. LSD should have pointed out that my ideas were flawed, and debated the subject with me, communist to communist. instead, he just outright restricted me.

admittedly, i did at one point in time say that the free market could be used in a socialist system. but after review, i have discarded that idea in general, and altered my opinion to this:

the revolution might be long and highly demanding of the proletariat. as such, i think we should socialise the free market at the beginning of the revolution to allow the economy to continue throughout the revolution. as the revolution comes to an end, i believe we will have the resources and time to plan out and create a communist distributive economy. but if we try to do this at the beginning of the revolution, it could prove to be hectic and destructive to our cause.

we need to allow the free market to continue at the beginning of the revolution so as to allow the economy not to collapse, but we need to socialise it so we can be sure that the basic needs of life are easily provided. as the revolution continues, we need to slowly dismantle the free market and replace it with a distributive economy, and by the end of the revolution, whatever elements of the free market remain should be done away with.

all i propose is caution.