there are "capitalists" hiding under your bed!

[grouchomarx]

Leftists project their own totalitarian nature on others.

Communists are so lazy that even their strawman enemy--resistance to the bourgeoise or "capitalists"--is a childish sloppy mendacious caricature.
Leftists argue from a farcical premise.
As though "capitalism" is a centrally-planned scheme. As socialism clearly is.
As though "capitalism" is encoded in a manifesto written by some imaginary author named "Karl Capital" :lol: As marxism is in its own "Karl Marx" version.
As though capitalism is a membership organization. As communist marxist vanguards clearly are.
As though "capitalists" are members of some sort of political community with coordinated activities carried out in every single nook and cranny of the world. As communism strives to be. A "proletarian government" was Marx's euphemism for totalitarian hegemony. Now leftists euphemize totalitarian dungeons as "planned economies."
Do not even try to argue about the "whithering away of the state" as even you leftist flunkies shy away from mentioning the failure of every single leftist revolution to attain this shangri la.
As though "capitalism" demands the extermination of other economic systems to survive. Marxists clearly demand precisely this.
As though "capitalists" are in affiliation through some imaginary network. As communists actually have massive transnational networks; "Internationals."
What marxist reactionaries will never understand is that capitalism is not a gnostic codified dogma. As marxism is and can only be. To this day there is still debate and controversy over the maze-like intricacies of free market dynamics. Even free market advocates disagree on the labyrinthine details of sophisticated "capitalist" economies.
No "capitalist" claims to understand every thing under the sun about the human condition or that he possesses the key to human redemption. As gnostic Marxists do this precisely. If you dont believe this, glimpse a taste of leftist arrogance by reading the opening line of Marx's Manifesto. For self-proclaimed
intellectuals to reduce the rich history of the human experience to the obscene minimum of "class struggle" is why Marxists are vulgar charlatans, pompous frauds, and mendacious cretins.
There are no people anywhere in the world who derive their identity as being "capitalists." As marxists are self-identified marxists.
There are no movements anywhere in the world that title their scheme as "capitalism."
As marxists clearly advertise their messianic vision as marxism.
Capitalism can be a passive backdrop; capitalism is not an invasive social condition. Marxism can only be invasive. You can be communist, marxist, socialist, leftist, atheist, muslim, a witch doctor etc. in a Western democratic capitalist country with absolutely no conflict with the political authorities.
Communists in the West are even free to set up communes and "workers councils" ( if its their land, their property, and their people they can do whaterver the want); that they would have to compete in the human playing field is what scares marxists, and what underscores that marxist economics/politics is risibly inferior.
There are numerous marxist parties in the West, such as the Revolutionary Communist Party, World Workers Party, and Communist Party USA. There are marxist politicians elected to public office all over the "capitalist" West. How do leftists explain away that?
There is absolutely no political freedom and pluralism allowed in "planned economy" marxist states. A human being living in an industrialized free market liberal democracy does not need to be a "capitalist" to attain self-preservation. In marxist societies, open deviation from marxist thought can lead to one's death.
Capitalism is not a man-made dogma conjured up by some mad-scientist somewhere.
Leftists are paranoid totalitarian reactionaries and hence they cannot understand that capitalism could be any different from their own totalitarian archetype.
In free markets you can choose to participate or not. Why? Because capitalism is not a political system as socialism is both a political and economic plan. Re-read Marx's discredited screed.

Leftists use "capitalists" or "capitalism" as a slur and ad hominem attack towards anything outside of the marxist faith.

The root of social problems is not the human playing field, the root of social problems is the problematic individual.
Hence if some employer in a non-communist country supposedly underpays and beats his workers, leftists assign "capitalism" to his crime. While in a marxist "planned economy" a worker in a state-factory gets paid even less, is exploited on a totalitarian scale, geats beaten even more sadistically; and gets sentenced to a stint in the gulag for good measure. And yet leftists dont assign "capitalism" to that crime. Underpaying, mistreating, and exploiting workers is not a "capitalist" crime, it is a human crime.
The same applies to the other leftist boogeyman: landlords.
A "Capitalist Party" political force did not engender the conditions that allow that first employer to mistreat other human beings--no--he mistreats other human beings because he is a predatory person. Unlike the "planned economy" state, where a real actual Communist Party set the precise conditions for the workers in their factories to receive starvation wages or no pay at all, to have no legal protections, and no recognition of their human rights. In Marxist countries the courts are simply appendages of the Communist state. People trapped in socialist countries are not "citizens", they are subjects and property of the state. Marxist governments rule by violence and terror.
And as history has shown us, marxists and their gulag states are the most predatory and totalitarian societies in human history.
Again, socialism is not just an unfeasible economic plan, socialism is also a political system.
Capitalism is the human playing field, not a political arrangement. Leftists will never admit this.
This is why a free market economy within a Western liberal democracy as in the United States of America has produced the most tolerant, generous, and open society in the history of mankind.
Western free market democracies have elevated hundreds of millions of people to a comfortable middle class existence where they enjoy material abundance, political freedom, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, and the right to vote in elections.
A worker in a capitalist modern liberal democracy has more legal protections, rights, privileges and recourses to justice than a worker in any other economic or political system in the history of mankind.
But ofcourse, leftists are addicted to hierarchy: and their analytical model of 'victim and oppressor' has rotted their minds to the extent that they lack simple logic or decency.
In marxism's relatively short history, they have phenomenally (or tragically) outpaced any other ideology or religion in murdering, torturing, starving and impoverishing human beings.
In the name of "social justice" 100 million people have been murdered in the 20th century as a matter of government policy in "planned economies."
More than 45 million people have been starved to death as a matter of government action in marxist countries.
More than 1 billion people have been impoverished and oppressed by marxist vanguards.

But for leftists none of this matters, all leftists need is the cartoonishly archaic "capitalist" boogeyman along with the requisite class warfare drama-play to justify murdering, starving, and ruining the lives of millions of people.

[Jazzratt]

That you took time to type this and realised that all you would gain from it are sarcastic comments or someone explaining, patiently, to you why you're wrong shows what an utterly futile existence you lead and how killing you would not only be an almost transcendentally fulfilling experience but also an incredible kindness.

The irony of how you chose to use the term 'straw man' to refer to leftist analysis of capitalism and then went on to make this steaming tirade against your strawman of socialism is utterly delectable.

Hopefully someone less cynical than me might decide arguing with you is worth their time and persuade you that you are wrong, but this seems unlikely as you type in the semi-literate fashion of someone who has learned a few words that they believe make them sound intelligent but has not managed to grasp the finer points of illusionary sagacity or managed to understand that to be taken seriously at all on a debate forum their intellect has to be something other than a phantasm constructed by psuedo intellectual vocabulary. That and you're a tosser, please die :)

[IcarusAngel]

Why was this guy banned? He's hilarious.

Notice how this guys "arguments" against communism is nothing more than a collection of myths against communism: Communism has killed X many people; Karl Marx was lazy and actually purposefully lived off capitalists (this is blatantly unture) and other random attacks on his character; Karl Marx "made up capitalism just to attack it"; socialists call everything they don't like capitalism (as if we're anti-political science, of course there are other ideologies).

[Janus]

Why was this guy banned?
Sock puppet for another banned member.

[RGacky3]

While were are on banning people? What does trolling mean?

[IcarusAngel]

http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html

[Fodman]

the troll forgets that hundreds of millions of people have been starved to death from being priced out of receiving adequate food supplies - notably those in Africa - victims of global capitalism ('free' trade)

Also, he is either ignorant of, or unaware of the 50 million native americans killed by the North America and South American 'settlers' - who can very easily be defined as capitalists.

British Imperialism killed 30 million at least in Africa, ALONE

Flemish Imperialism killed 13-14 million in the Congo, ALONE

etc......

[Fodman]

While in a marxist "planned economy" a worker in a state-factory gets paid even less, is exploited on a totalitarian scale, geats beaten even more sadistically; and gets sentenced to a stint in the gulag for good measure.
who says?

remember that Marxism in theory is extremely different from countries that claim to have its ideology

look up events such as the Paris Commune of 1871, and Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War - look at the freedom and liberty these people enjoyed before being over-run by capitalist and fascist forces.

capitalism is the word that best suits the desire for unnecessary volumes of wealth, at the expense of those that create it in the first place - it is not a 'bogeyman', you tard

[totalitarian_zombies]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:08 am
That you took time to type this and realised that all you would gain from it are sarcastic comments or someone explaining, patiently, to you why you're wrong shows what an utterly futile existence you lead and how killing you would not only be an almost transcendentally fulfilling experience but also an incredible kindness.

The irony of how you chose to use the term 'straw man' to refer to leftist analysis of capitalism and then went on to make this steaming tirade against your strawman of socialism is utterly delectable.

Hopefully someone less cynical than me might decide arguing with you is worth their time and persuade you that you are wrong, but this seems unlikely as you type in the semi-literate fashion of someone who has learned a few words that they believe make them sound intelligent but has not managed to grasp the finer points of illusionary sagacity or managed to understand that to be taken seriously at all on a debate forum their intellect has to be something other than a phantasm constructed by psuedo intellectual vocabulary. That and you're a tosser, please die :)

Hopefully someone less cynical than me might decide arguing with you is worth their time and persuade you that you are wrong, but this seems unlikely as you type in the semi-literate fashion of someone who has learned a few words that they believe make them sound intelligent but has not managed to grasp the finer points of illusionary sagacity or managed to understand that to be taken seriously at all on a debate forum their intellect has to be something other than a phantasm constructed by psuedo intellectual vocabulary. That and you're a tosser, please die :)

As opposed to the sagacity of marxist cretins forcing their marxist theory on innocent people over and over again yet still expecting different results.

The old "marxism has never been tried" excuse is what happens when totalitarian criminals are caught red-handed impounding entire societies into their gulags.

[MrDoom]

Totalitarian pseudo-socialism and Stalinism like North Korea and the USSR is pure totalitarianism and state-capitalism, not communism. For one, communism is stateless. Anything failing that truth/falsehood test is not communism.

[totalitarian_zombies]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 08, 2007 09:21 pm
the troll forgets that hundreds of millions of people have been starved to death from being priced out of receiving adequate food supplies - notably those in Africa - victims of global capitalism ('free' trade)

Also, he is either ignorant of, or unaware of the 50 million native americans killed by the North America and South American 'settlers' - who can very easily be defined as capitalists.

British Imperialism killed 30 million at least in Africa, ALONE

Flemish Imperialism killed 13-14 million in the Congo, ALONE

etc......
Ofcourse, the "capitalism is even worse excuse". Just what the hell would that prove?
Even if those tragedies were true, isn't marxism supposed to be better?

When Communists massacre and ruin millions of people in their collectivization and industrialization frenzies, leftists annoint those atrocities as "necessary".
And yet the supposed 50(?) million Native Americans killed draw crocodile tears from leftist hypocrites. As if the Native Americans were model marxist societies.
If it wasnt for the European settling of North America, there would be no industry there and no proletarians for leftists to agitate.

British Imperialism no longer exists; notice how leftists base their activism on ancient moral dramas that have no relevance to the present day. Communism not only is still alive and kicking in many parts of the world, but leftists want to imprison the rest of the world also.

As for the French; that nation was by and large the origins of the leftist plague. If there is any one country that deserves to suffer under marxist tyranny, its that one.
Nah, even French surrender monkeys dont deserve communist gulags.
No human being deserves to live in a place run by a marxist vanguard.

[totalitarian_zombies]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 01:08 am
Totalitarian pseudo-socialism and Stalinism like North Korea and the USSR is pure totalitarianism and state-capitalism, not communism. For one, communism is stateless. Anything failing that truth/falsehood test is not communism.
Marx did not live long enough to see the inevitable Stalinist results of his economic theory.
Socialism does not produce material abundance; it produces scarcity, inefficiency, and waste. No profit motive means no human being has an incentive to work, innovate, create, and excel. The result is societal decay.
The resulting poverty and squalor makes a mockery of Marx's and later Trotsky's assertions about "the superior productive forces of socialism".
Trotsky argued in his "gains of October" apology for the Soviet terror, that eventually socialist production would outpace those of the capitalist West. That this never happened is evidenced by the Soviet Union being brought to its knees from competition with the supposedly inferior capitalist forces of production.

Marxist state terror machines never "whither away" because they need to rule by terror and violence to keep alive this socialist lie. This necessitates more government, not less.
By confiscating all means of production, abolishing private capital, and eliminating the profit motive; these proletarian dictatorships drop on themselves the immense task of planning, predicting, adjusting, and directing the billions of calculations necessary to run a productive economy. They fail miserably and genocidally at this task. All this gives rise to an even bigger bureaucratic colossus. Again, this engenders even more government, not the "whithering away of the state."

Stalinist terror-states are not an aberration of the socialist theory, they are its consummation.

Perhaps even Karl Marx himself would admit his terrible mistake--and apologize to humanity--were he alive today.
If even you leftist fanatics admit that "real marxism has never been tried" , then how can you be so imperious, arrogant, and murderous in your assertion that it is a fact that communism is equal to a "stateless society"?
A decent honest person would at least wait to have proof and empirical evidence before making this claim.

[Comrade J]

Well first of all, let me start by saying how embarassing this is for you, your lack of knowledge on the matter is a complete joke.



Originally posted by The [email protected] 08, 2007 09:21 pm
the troll forgets that hundreds of millions of people have been starved to death from being priced out of receiving adequate food supplies - notably those in Africa - victims of global capitalism ('free' trade)

Also, he is either ignorant of, or unaware of the 50 million native americans killed by the North America and South American 'settlers' - who can very easily be defined as capitalists.

British Imperialism killed 30 million at least in Africa, ALONE

Flemish Imperialism killed 13-14 million in the Congo, ALONE

etc......
Ofcourse, the "capitalism is even worse excuse". Just what the hell would that prove?
Even if those tragedies were true, isn't marxism supposed to be better?

Yes Marxism is supposed to be better, and is better when applied correctly, and not in some pseudo-Marxist state like Stalin's USSR. Though of course, being the deluded and uneducated fool that you are, I have no doubt that this is your image of what communism is?

And what do you mean 'even if?' They are true, it's not really a debatable subject, and the fact is, as has been pointed out already, these were the direct result of the capitalist system. I have no doubt you could try to justify the deaths in the dark recesses of your shrunken infantile mind, but it is simply undeniable that capitalism has caused this.



When Communists massacre and ruin millions of people in their collectivization and industrialization frenzies, leftists annoint those atrocities as "necessary".

Great, I was right, you really do think Communism is simply the brutal control and massacre of people, though I can't say it comes as a surprise.
You've got to remember that communism is by definition, an anti-state and anti-class ideology, and I'm sure with some real effort you can figure out that the Soviet Union doesn't really match that description?
Of course, there are leftists who disagree with me and support the Stalinist regime, but that's why we're here - the far-left is by no means a one-sided dogmatic following, which is evidently your impression at the moment.


And yet the supposed 50(?) million Native Americans killed draw crocodile tears from leftist hypocrites. As if the Native Americans were model marxist societies.
Since when did Marxists claim to support only "marxist societies?" We oppose imperialism and colonialism, and the killings of mass numbers of Native Americans simply for land expansion purposes is quite clearly in opposition to leftist theory and opinion. We also oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestine, as it is the action of an imperialistic state over the an oppressed nation, which again is not a Marxist society.


If it wasnt for the European settling of North America, there would be no industry there and no proletarians for leftists to agitate.
Ok, so you think it was necessary to kill millions of people to industrialise a country... but... hang on.. didn't you just criticise the Stalin apologists for having the exact same fucking attitude? :huh:



Communism not only is still alive and kicking in many parts of the world, but leftists want to imprison the rest of the world also.
Communism exists in the sense that millions of people worldwide work for and believe in it, but there are no 'communist states', which I assume is what you're implying. I suppose you're thinking of places like Cuba, and if you're extremely stupid, maybe even China? Again, remember that communism is an anti-state theory, so Cuba or China or wherever you're thinking of is obviously not 'communist.'

Also, may I politely ask what in the name of fuck you mean by "leftists want to imprison the rest of the world also?" Marxism and anarchism are liberation movements, who seek to liberate the working class from the oppression of the bourgeoise, not imprison people you cretin. Though again, this leads back to your image of what communism is: gulags on the permafrost and bread queues. :rolleyes:


No human being deserves to live in a place run by a marxist vanguard.
Many leftists would agree totally. But they agree with the statement for different reasons, because they are at least educated on what a Marxist vanguard would actually be like, and haven't just picked up a right-wing History book on the USSR and come to the typical uneducated conclusion.


As for the French; that nation was by and large the origins of the leftist plague. If there is any one country that deserves to suffer under marxist tyranny, its that one.
Nah, even French surrender monkeys dont deserve communist gulags.
Yeah, those damn surrendering bastards, they should follow a no-surrender policy, just like the Americans in Vietnam, now there's a real fighting force to show how it's done.

Your lack of knowledge on leftism is practically zero, I assume you're parroting whatever drivel you've been fed in school, or the media or maybe even stormfront.
Take note that as capitalists, the state and mainstream media are inherently opposed to communism, so naturally they will do whatever is within their power to discredit is, because they know for a fact that brainless ****s such as your good self will suck it in like a sponge.

[Fodman]

And yet the supposed 50(?) million Native Americans killed draw crocodile tears from leftist hypocrites. As if the Native Americans were model marxist societies
they were certainly the closest civilisation to what would be deemed Marxist - nobody 'owned' land. Things were more or less collectivally-owned - the place where they contradict each other is that they had unelected village elders

Why do you think that Leftists condone the massacre of millions? Just because some authoritarian loons masquarading under the front of 'communism' did it doesn't mean every one left of centralism supports it


British Imperialism no longer exists; notice how leftists base their activism on ancient moral dramas that have no relevance to the present day. Communism not only is still alive and kicking in many parts of the world
British Imperialism is a prime example of the horrors of extreme capitalism - it does not matter how long ago it existed - IT STILL HAPPENED

by saying this, are you saying either it's okay to ignore capitalist massacres, or that it's okay to forget that a massacre happened, so long as it happened over a century ago?


but leftists want to imprison the rest of the world also.
i'm all for freedom - except where the market is concerned

[BurnTheOliveTree]

how can you be so imperious, arrogant, and murderous in your assertion that it is a fact that communism is equal to a "stateless society"?

:lol:

Firstly, how exactly can an assertion be murderous? Short of me saying "I'm going to shoot you" this kind of hyperbole is just silly, and you should stop it.

Secondly, we have every right to assert this. Because, luckily, we can decide what our theory is. If a society has a state, it isn't a communist society. Whatever you want to call it, it isn't communism. It might be the inevitable failure of a marxist revolution. But it isn't communism. It might be socialism, but it isn't communism. It might be a brutal dictatorship, but it isn't communism.

The point is, we set the standard here. Even if I concede every single dubious point you make against our ideology, you do not have the right to tell us what is and what isn't communism. To us, any society not fulfilling the criteria of classless and stateless is either a failure, a work in progress, or nothing to do with our ideas. Our end goal isn't what you decide it to be.

-Alex

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 07:42 am

how can you be so imperious, arrogant, and murderous in your assertion that it is a fact that communism is equal to a "stateless society"?

:lol:

Firstly, how exactly can an assertion be murderous? Short of me saying "I'm going to shoot you" this kind of hyperbole is just silly, and you should stop it.

Secondly, we have every right to assert this. Because, luckily, we can decide what our theory is. If a society has a state, it isn't a communist society. Whatever you want to call it, it isn't communism. It might be the inevitable failure of a marxist revolution. But it isn't communism. It might be socialism, but it isn't communism. It might be a brutal dictatorship, but it isn't communism.

The point is, we set the standard here. Even if I concede every single dubious point you make against our ideology, you do not have the right to tell us what is and what isn't communism. To us, any society not fulfilling the criteria of classless and stateless is either a failure, a work in progress, or nothing to do with our ideas. Our end goal isn't what you decide it to be.

-Alex
Marxists have the absolute right to define what their theory is, and isn't.

But critics have a right to demand of the marxists to supply PROOF of what they say, and that just because you say things will be a certain way, does not mean it will be this way (in other words, the "because I say so" argument which is so prevalent by the Marxists/socialists/anarchists here does not need to be accepted by the Right (nor should it be accepted by the Left either, but as is noted, the Left is free to make such juvenile claims in their defense)).

[Vargha Poralli]

But critics have a right to demand of the marxists to supply PROOF of what they say, and that just because you say things will be a certain way, does not mean it will be this way

The PROOF you demand (http://www.marxists.org/)

Read what Marx,Engels,Lenin,Trotsky,Rosa Luxemburg wrote about communism and understand the nature of the "Communist" ,"Totalitarian","Dictatorship" countries.

Reaching a scientific understanding was hard work. Conscientious, painstaking research was required, instead of philosophical speculation and unwarranted, sweeping generalisations. We cannot afford you what is wrong with socialist regimes for exclusive to people like you. You have a Brain,You Know to read. I have given you access to Marxist Literature finds faults and evidences that Socialism leads to "Totalitarian Regimes" and you come up with Proof that Capitalism is the end of history.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:31 am

But critics have a right to demand of the marxists to supply PROOF of what they say, and that just because you say things will be a certain way, does not mean it will be this way

The PROOF you demand (http://www.marxists.org/)

Read what Marx,Engels,Lenin,Trotsky,Rosa Luxemburg wrote about communism and understand the nature of the "Communist" ,"Totalitarian","Dictatorship" countries.

Reaching a scientific understanding was hard work. Conscientious, painstaking research was required, instead of philosophical speculation and unwarranted, sweeping generalisations. We cannot afford you what is wrong with socialist regimes for exclusive to people like you. You have a Brain,You Know to read. I have given you access to Marxist Literature finds faults and evidences that Socialism leads to "Totalitarian Regimes" and you come up with Proof that Capitalism is the end of history.

You are citing authors of a hundred years ago and more.

You think maybe they were wrong in how they thought a communist/socialist/anarchist society would evolve?

[Vargha Poralli]

You are citing authors of a hundred years ago and more.

You think maybe they were wrong in how they thought a communist/socialist/anarchist society would evolve?

Obviously you are a Troll who have no intrest in finding what socialism is. Why don't you give me a PROOF that capitalism does not SUCK and it is the end and Final thing in the EArth ?

[totalitarian_zombies]

Yes Marxism is supposed to be better, and is better when applied correctly, and not in some pseudo-Marxist state like Stalin's USSR. Though of course, being the deluded and uneducated fool that you are, I have no doubt that this is your image of what communism is?


The Bolsheviks employed marxism precisely as Marx described. It is not the terror-state poverty results that deny they were communist, it is the theory of communism producing a "classless and stateless society" that denies reality.

If you leftists claim that "real communism has never been tried" , then what empirical evidence do you have to support your claims of communism producing a "classless and stateless" society?


And what do you mean 'even if?' They are true, it's not really a debatable subject, and the fact is, as has been pointed out already, these were the direct result of the capitalist system. I have no doubt you could try to justify the deaths in the dark recesses of your shrunken infantile mind, but it is simply undeniable that capitalism has caused this.

Capitalism is not a political system.

A capitalist mode of production is not the author of an individual's crimes.

Marxism is not just an assinine economic theory, it is also a political plan.
Read Marx's discredited screed.
Communist atrocities are a matter of government policy and socialist ideological necessity. Terror and violence is needed to keep the alive the socialist lie. It is the socialist idea that begets the terror.

Blame the actual people that purportedly carried out those Native American atrocities all you want.


You've got to remember that communism is by definition, an anti-state and anti-class ideology, and I'm sure with some real effort you can figure out that the Soviet Union doesn't really match that description?
Of course, there are leftists who disagree with me and support the Stalinist regime, but that's why we're here - the far-left is by no means a one-sided dogmatic following, which is evidently your impression at the moment.

Your words are cheap.
More theories, fantasies, and dreams with no proof or evidence to support them.



Since when did Marxists claim to support only "marxist societies?" We oppose imperialism and colonialism, and the killings of mass numbers of Native Americans simply for land expansion purposes is quite clearly in opposition to leftist theory and opinion. We also oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestine, as it is the action of an imperialistic state over the an oppressed nation, which again is not a Marxist society.

Imperialism and colonialism are the hallmark of Communist states ever since the founding of the Soviet Empire.
The Soviets invaded, colonized, and absorbed into their Empire: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Chechnya, Bulgaria, Romania, Afghanistan, and lesser known countries whos suffering was just as bad under Soviet rule.
China still colonizes, brutalizes, and commits genocide against the people of Tibet.
Marxists never took any action (not lip service) to confront this brutal imperialism and colonialism.
Save your energy, leftist imbecile, we all know the routine : "duh duh China and the Soviet Union were not communist duh duh"....
Drooling imbecile.

Leftists are such contradicting hypocritical charlatans that they extend their solidarity to ultra-religious, women-suppressing, gay-bashing, minority-hating, patriarchal, reactionary Islamic fascists in Palestine, Iran, Afganistan, Iraq, or anywhere else Islamic criminals are undermining self-determination and freedom.


Ok, so you think it was necessary to kill millions of people to industrialise a country... but... hang on.. didn't you just criticise the Stalin apologists for having the exact same fucking attitude? :huh:

Leftist remedial cases would not be able to identify irony if it took the form of a brick hitting them on the head. It is you leftist criminals that claim genodical third world marxist failures such as China and Soviet Russia were "necessary" to industrialization and the creation of a proletariat. Revlefters have written as much.



Communism exists in the sense that millions of people worldwide work for and believe in it, but there are no 'communist states', which I assume is what you're implying. I suppose you're thinking of places like Cuba, and if you're extremely stupid, maybe even China? Again, remember that communism is an anti-state theory, so Cuba or China or wherever you're thinking of is obviously not 'communist.'

More theories and fantasies with no proof or evidence to support it.
But lets stipulate: if China and Cuba are "not communist" then what actions
--NOT LIP SERVICE--are you leftists taking right now to overthrow those "non communist" governments?


Also, may I politely ask what in the name of fuck you mean by "leftists want to imprison the rest of the world also?" Marxism and anarchism are liberation movements, who seek to liberate the working class from the oppression of the bourgeoise, not imprison people you cretin. Though again, this leads back to your image of what communism is: gulags on the permafrost and bread queues. :rolleyes:


More garbage fantasies.
Its easy for you to claim that communism and anarchism are "liberation movements" to indulge your feudal "working class versus oppressor" archaic analytical model because no such movements have ever delivered any liberation.
In this way leftists pre-emptively shield themselves from complicity in the communist nightmares their comrades realize.


and haven't just picked up a right-wing History book on the USSR and come to the typical uneducated conclusion.

A right wing history book? Do you know of any? I'd seriously like to read one.
In the USA , the public school system, the Universities, the major media, and the Democrat Party are all leftist dominated institutions.
The American Universities are the most rabid and resemble miniature totalitarian socialist states where no deviation from the political orthodoxy is tolerated.
How is it that the purportedly "capitalist fascist Nazi KKK imperialist" USA has its popular culture dominated and dictated by activists under the spell of marxist delusions?
How do leftists explain away that?
Go visit Berkely, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, or any other American University and experience the leftist hegemony for yourself.


Yeah, those damn surrendering bastards, they should follow a no-surrender policy, just like the Americans in Vietnam, now there's a real fighting force to show how it's done.

Your lack of knowledge on leftism is practically zero, I assume you're parroting whatever drivel you've been fed in school, or the media or maybe even stormfront.
Take note that as capitalists, the state and mainstream media are inherently opposed to communism, so naturally they will do whatever is within their power to discredit is, because they know for a fact that brainless ****s such as your good self will suck it in like a sponge.

Leftists are so ignorant they dont even realize when they are contradicting themselves. Vietnam itself was the site of a French retreat!
The American forces in Vietnam never lost a single battle.
North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap asserted that if it wasnt for the American Left and its "anti-war" movement forcing and American retreat, the communist forces would of never prevailed on the battlefield.
That is the assessment of a communist, not a "capitalist."
The notion of American military forces supposedly "losing" in Vietnam, is not one shared by the Communist military forces themselves.
What the hell do stormfronts have to do with anything? The weather is a "capitalist" conspiracy now?
Again, in the USA and Western Europe, the mainstream media are leftist biased and sympathetic to communism. To deny this underscores one's ignorance at best, or venal nature at worst.

[totalitarian_zombies]

they were certainly the closest civilisation to what would be deemed Marxist - nobody 'owned' land. Things were more or less collectivally-owned - the place where they contradict each other is that they had unelected village elders

This is actually true, and I've written as much here in this website a long while ago. I'll repost it when I find it. I wrote this more current comment stipulating from the Revleft consensus ( that I've read) that the Native Americans would of been a pre-industrial society lacking proletarians as prerequisites for a Marxist revolution.
Let's suspend the hostilities for a second. I'm glad you wrote that and think that way. Honestly, did you draw those ideas from the post of some "capitalist" Revleft member a long while back?



Why do you think that Leftists condone the massacre of millions? Just because some authoritarian loons masquarading under the front of 'communism' did it doesn't mean every one left of centralism supports it

The leftist solution of total government ownership of the means of production inevitably leads to the rise of a leviathan bureacracy that not only rules politically but rules the economic realm as well. Inherent in the Marxist plan are ingredients for totalitarian rule. It cannot be any other way because Marxism is based on false premises about human psychology and nature.



British Imperialism is a prime example of the horrors of extreme capitalism - it does not matter how long ago it existed - IT STILL HAPPENED

Thats half-true. In that case hurry up with your marxist project of destroying Great Britain (joking). British Imperialism was also responsible for bringing slavery to North America.
Slavery was not an American tradition, it was a legacy of the British Empire.
Capitalism is not a political system. British imperialists killed, enslaved, and exploited people not because they were "capitalists", but because they were cruel ruthless British monarchists.
I remember some leftist here using "Somalia" and "Nigeria" as examples of "capitalist" failures. Somalia and Nigeria are hell holes because they are dominated by barbaric heartless Islamic criminals, not because the mode of production in those countries may or may not be "capitalist."
A capitalist mode of production is not the author of an individual's crimes.


i'm all for freedom - except where the market is concerned

Leftist revolutionaries have proven in every place they've seized power that the abolition of the free market leads to generalized poverty and the rise of a totalitarian state.
Communist totalitarian states are necessary because marxist economics fail to deliver the paradise of material abundance the revolutionaries promise.
The marxist vanguard cannot sustain its power by admitting this truth. Therefore the marxist vanguard insists that the resulting misery and entropy is the paradise delivered. When the people refuse to believe that, they must be forced to believe it. This gives birth to the terror and the gulag. Communism is achieved.

[totalitarian_zombies]

Marx was frightened and confused by what he saw happening all around him. His fear and confusion produced a childish regression to what seemed to him a simpler gentler time.

Communism is actually not new.
Primitive, stone-age groups of hunters and gatherers that lived in small packs, with identifiable goals and familial connections, lived a communist existence.
They had no written language, no math, no science, no technology. They lived on land no one owned. They hunted animals and gathered fruits and berries no one owned. They had no monetary currency.

Back in the time when human beings were merely squatters on this Earth, communist homelessness was all they could muster.

Native Americans were this type of stone age people.

Such tiny primal human packs were best suited for central-planning because their lives were so collectively vulnerable to the elements, starvation, and animals; that their goals were not just self-explanatory but desperate.

Modern industrial democratic societies with free market economies are so complex and technologically advanced, its people have such different goals, traditions, religions, and aims; there populations in the hundreds of millions spread out over various time zones, that only the invisible hand and hyper-productive prowess of capitalist production
can create the material abundance to suits their needs.
In modern industrialized societies, private property affords human beings the most basic foundation for defense against the predations of governments and other people.

Remove private capital, and you get defenseless human beings regressed back to a primal terror and completely vulnerable to the predations of their "infallible" marxist masters.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:56 pm
As opposed to the sagacity of marxist cretins forcing their marxist theory on innocent people over and over again yet still expecting different results.


Oh, so you mean the capitalist bourgeoisie, doesn't slander and lie about Marxism, and in schools teach falsities about it, and teach the capitalism is the "best," and the only "free," system out there, and that all others lead to despotism, and dictatorship? So the students asked to be taught that capitalism reigns supreme?

Capitalists force there theory on to the masses as soon as their warm, don't pull this bullshit.


The old "marxism has never been tried" excuse is what happens when totalitarian criminals are caught red-handed impounding entire societies into their gulags.

First off, the reason why Marxists say, it has never been tried, or a nation was Communist but then it was corrupted, and thus stopped, is due to theory, not everything calling itself, and veiling itself in Socialism is truly Socialist, not to mention if you study closely you can see that Communist nations were corrupted, see the USSR which fell due to capitalist reforms, so I apologize that a little thing called theory, fucks up your strawmen arguments and assertion against Marxism.

Second, a lot of what is said about the gulags is historically inaccurate and false.

[MrDoom]

Right, the first thing us communists propose to do after we kill all human infants is to destroy all technology. :rolleyes:

Primitive communism existed out of simply neccessity. Post-industrial communism arrives out of a set of property relations generated by industrialization and agriculture. If there's enough for all, why make any distinction between "property rights"?

And give an actual answer, not some nonsense pseudo-intellectual wordplay.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:57 pm
Marx was frightened and confused by what he saw happening all around him. His fear and confusion produced a childish regression to what seemed to him a simpler gentler time.


There is a sharp difference between primitive Communism, and the Communism Marx talked about that would overthrow capitalism, anyone with even a small working knowledge of Marxism, could tell you this, but you being yet another capitalist fuck, I assume you either don't know this, and are relying solely on rhetoric, and slander, or are just ignoring this to make a bullshit point.

[totalitarian_zombies]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:19 am
Right, the first thing us communists propose to do after we kill all human infants is to destroy all technology. :rolleyes:

Primitive communism existed out of simply neccessity. Post-industrial communism arrives out of a set of property relations generated by industrialization and agriculture. If there's enough for all, why make any distinction between "property rights"?

And give an actual answer, not some nonsense pseudo-intellectual wordplay.
It is precisely the communist solution for all social ills: total government owenrship of the means of production, that is obsolete. In the primitive past the "government" would of been a pack of cavemen running around scared.
These cavemen produced nothing, and hence communism was in its element. :lol:
Collective ownership was feasible because no one owned the land, animals, fruits, berries etc.; and private property was not necessary.

Communists have proven that when they confiscate all industry and collectivize agriculture, the resulting marxist economy creates poverty, scarcity, inefficiency and waste.
Communist ownership of the means of production is such a miserable failure that even Communist China is employing capitalist "special economic zones" to generate a real economy.
Communists are the best advertisers for free market economics! :lol:

[MrDoom]

Collective ownership was feasible because no one owned the land, animals, fruits, berries etc.; and private property was not necessary.

Yet the basic material conditions required for a society to be considered communist include advanced modern idustry and agriculture. If there's enough for all, private ownership is not neccessary.


Communists have proven that when they confiscate all industry and collectivize agriculture, the resulting marxist economy creates poverty, scarcity, inefficiency and waste.
True, but only in nations that were backwards feudal agrarian societies that were starving and in poverty to begin with, and were nowhere close to having the material conditions neccessary for socialism.


Communist ownership of the means of production is such a miserable failure that even Communist China is employing capitalist "special economic zones" to generate a real economy.
China is no more "communist" than you are. China has been off the road towards socialism for some time now, since what's-his-name took over after Mao died.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:52 pm
It is precisely the communist solution for all social ills: total government owenrship of the means of production, that is obsolete.
You don't understand how Communist governments really worked, in that the workers elect fellow workers into the vanguard, whom in turn vote someone to be the chairman of the vanguard or party, however this chairman, is NOT like a president, or other bourgeoisie leaders, he has a different function, so really the government seizure over the means of production of capital, is the worker's gaining power and control over the state apparatus, and they are exerting the dictatorship of the proletariat, so it isn't the whole "big brother," government, controlling you and everything around you, as you and other capitalist cretins preach.


In the primitive past the "government" would of been a pack of cavemen running around scared.

In "caveman," time their really wasn't a government, which can be defined as one class ruling over the other, and primitive tribes were more anarchistic than that, then eventually had a chieftain, and then evolved into primitive "governments."


These cavemen produced nothing, and hence communism was in its element. :lol:

Oh yea, Communists are lazy, the Soviets, didn't take the ruined Russia, and industrialize, and modernize it to the point where it became a power second only to America, and which put the first man into space, yea, real lazy huh? :rolleyes:


Communists have proven that when they confiscate all industry and collectivize agriculture, the resulting marxist economy creates poverty, scarcity, inefficiency and waste.

Wrong, in Communism, private property is abolished and in it's place is set, Communal ownership of property, and as for those byproducts, those are all the byproducts of capitalism, see africa for the biggest example of this.


Communists are the best advertisers for free market economics! :lol:

No, Communists want to abolish the market system all together, how about you read some literature, or do you prefer looking like a dumbass?

[Fodman]

Honestly, did you draw those ideas from the post of some "capitalist" Revleft member a long while back?
no, i already knew it before i joined this site.

you cannot possibly define 'human nature' (plus, i'm not a Marxist)


British Imperialism was also responsible for bringing slavery to North America.
Slavery was not an American tradition, it was a legacy of the British Empire.
Capitalism is not a political system. British imperialists killed, enslaved, and exploited people not because they were "capitalists", but because they were cruel ruthless British monarchists.
I remember some leftist here using "Somalia" and "Nigeria" as examples of "capitalist" failures. Somalia and Nigeria are hell holes because they are dominated by barbaric heartless Islamic criminals, not because the mode of production in those countries may or may not be "capitalist."
[i]A capitalist mode of production is not the author of an individual's crimes.
a quarter of what you said here is true - the part about the mass-trade of slavery being an invention thought up by British Imperialism

not the rest though - most African countries are the way they are based on economic circumstances - some historic, and some not. For an example of recent economic hardships leading to chaos, take a look at the IMF and World Bank's involvement in Africa over the past few years - ALL African nations (besides Botswana) were 'assisted' by the IMF and World Bank, and ALL suffered terrible losses on their GDP, for many years. Botswana rejected their 'assistance', and continued to up it GDP

please note: the IMF and World Bank are purely free-market concoctions

the native people in these African nations retaliate to this - creating a sort of internal war - and when war happens in a country, religious and cultural extremes become more radical.

The British Imperialists killed, enslaved and exploited people...because they were capitalists! They didn't give a damn about the Africans (whom they saw as lesser mortals). They would have happily continued to enslave people had it not been for massive resistance to the trade back in Britain


Capitalism creates inequality - and it has been proven many times that inequality has a direct effect on crime rates - that's why the crime rates are so high in the UK, because it has one of the biggest inequality gaps in the world. The same goes for the US


Lenin clearly states that Imperialism is Capitalism at its extreme - the takeover and/or influence over the government in another country, purely for economic reasons


i will state again that i am not a Marxist, I'm a democratic socialist - therefore i believe in nationalising healthcare, transport systems, and power companies - as well as providing huge support for small businesses - and heavily regulating the major corporations - i doubt these ideas would lead to "misery and entropy"

[totalitarian_zombies]

There is a sharp difference between primitive Communism, and the Communism Marx talked about that would overthrow capitalism, anyone with even a small working knowledge of Marxism, could tell you this, but you being yet another capitalist fuck, I assume you either don't know this, and are relying solely on rhetoric, and slander, or are just ignoring this to make a bullshit point.[/QUOTE]
Even Marx had an inkling about how absurd the forced leveling of humanity by a proletarian government really was.
So Marx sought to distance himself from the real world reality that a state-imposed social justice squalor would bring.
Marx wrote about "primitive communists" because Marx's mind was clouded by emotions, fears, and myopia.
Marx didnt have the courage to admit that the term "primitive communism" is redundant.
The purported artificial "equality" of detroying the old order and from its ruins imposing a bare minimum subsistence is communism fulfilled. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" (emphasis added)
All communism is primitive. This is why the strength of the Left remains its indictment against the purported horrors of "capitalist" decadence and "commodity fetishism". See? Marxists are already hinting at their goals of a minimalist existence as a leveling of the supposed "inequalities" and material excesses of the capitalist order.

Communism is the primeval tribal ethos of collective identityand the devaluation of the individual; all the survival codes of small vulnerable groups with self-evident and desperate goals . Socialism belongs to the dark prehistory and primitive morality of the clan or the tribe.
This is why class distinctions and class antagonism are so powerful in the archaic mindset of the Left. By fueling their indignation with a feudal order of immutable class distinctions that no longer exist, leftists are reliving the tribal agressions of pre-history; this time incarnated as "classes."

It does not matter whether men acquired material possessions first, and then transcended it. Or if men never had acquired material possessions in the first place, as in the "primitive" communism argument. The end result is the same for those men and the following generations: an artificial leveling of society imposed by a totalitarian regime that crushes the human spirit.

[totalitarian_zombies]

they were certainly the closest civilisation to what would be deemed Marxist - nobody 'owned' land. Things were more or less collectivally-owned - the place where they contradict each other is that they had unelected village elders

Even the fact that Native Americans had unelected village elders is very communist.
The unelected village elders were their version of the politburo.
Setting aside the old "duh duhhh real communism has never been tried" excuse, no communist country has ever delivered political freedom; or material abundance for that matter.

[MrDoom]

Setting aside the old "duh duhhh real communism has never been tried" excuse, no communist country has ever delivered political freedom; or material abundance for that matter.

The only thing that proves is that communism cannot arise out of feudal agrarian economies.

[totalitarian_zombies]

Oh, so you mean the capitalist bourgeoisie, doesn't slander and lie about Marxism, and in schools teach falsities about it, and teach the capitalism is the "best," and the only "free," system out there, and that all others lead to despotism, and dictatorship? So the students asked to be taught that capitalism reigns supreme?

You've either never been to school in a liberal Western democracy or you are just a plain liar. In the USA for instance, the public schools are dominated by left wing teachers unions that elect the school boards. Public education in the USA is more like political-correctness day-care centers.
American academia is even more ideological and rabid. Tenured radicals and university administrations run college campuses like fortresses of left wing purity.

I challenge you to complain about one single major prestigious American University that you claim its faculty and administrators are "capitalists" and "right wing."

Students are taught that the USA is "evil, genocidal, racist, Nazi, KKK, sexist, imperialist, fascist, blah blah blah etc." from the public schools all the way through the university level. Students are taught that communism is "compassionate and has never really been tried."
Even American leftists boast that their wholly dominated educational enterprise is the "political base of the Left."



First off, the reason why Marxists say, it has never been tried, or a nation was Communist but then it was corrupted, and thus stopped, is due to theory, not everything calling itself, and veiling itself in Socialism is truly Socialist, not to mention if you study closely you can see that Communist nations were corrupted, see the USSR which fell due to capitalist reforms, so I apologize that a little thing called theory, fucks up your strawmen arguments and assertion against Marxism.

More mendacious excuses upon more piles of excuses. Leftists are the champions of making excuses because reality has delivered the verdict that communism is a horrendous failure. Leftists need to pretend that "communism has never been tried" as a means of breaking free from the shame of those communist disasters so they can be free to ruin more societies again.



Second, a lot of what is said about the gulags is historically inaccurate and false.

he he he
If according to leftists "the gulags were not communist at all" then why do leftists attempt to defend those "non-communist" communist concentration camps in the first place?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 07:54 pm
Even Marx had an inkling about how absurd
No, and it is clear from this bullshit of a post, that you don't know what is really being discussed, when I mention such words as primitive Communism, in that primitive Communism, was the name given to hunter-gather based societies, and in Marxist consider the first stage, whereas the last stage, was modern Communism, or scientific Socialism, and there is numerous differences between the two, which you have totally disregarded, to save face I guess in your pathetic string of arguments.

I would take time to address every foolish word you have spat out, and sort out your poor writing skills, and what not, bur I don't feel it's necessary, in that Communism, modern scientific Socialism, is not "primitive," nor is based, in anything, and if you have even read the bare minimum of Marxist literature, this would be clear, and since you have apparently not I don't feel like debating a blithering idiot.

Not to mention, Marx wasn't in fear of anything, and he and Engels wrote constantly to newspapers, and such citing errors, and correcting them, and publishing their works, as much as possible, so there was no fear or any such non-sense.

Also, Marxism doesn't seek to minimize the impact of the individual, or their respective role in history, however it does cut down, the false versions, of individuals being the sole source from which all of history is pushed forward.

Your also not understanding what is meant be equality, and inequality, in that when Marxists speak of equality, they are not talking about some mass herd conformity, but rather, political, economic, and social equality, which why anyone would be against this is beyond me.


Even the fact that Native Americans had unelected village elders is very communist. The unelected village elders were their version of the politburo.

Are you honestly this fucking stupid? Like seriously? Do you just enjoy throwing shit together wantonly and hope it comes out as a valid argument? Communism, talk about democracy on every level, in which the workers elect fellow workers into the vanguard or party, and then the party elects a chairman, which contrary to popular belief isn't like a president, or anything, but rather just an moderator, and "leader," of sorts of the party, but can be voted out at any point in time.

Also, I think you mean the vanguard, or party, considering the Politburo wasn't the main and central body of the Soviet Union, but only an administrative or executive organ, dumbass, but at any rate, the two can't be compared.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:09 pm
Setting aside the old "duh duhhh real communism has never been tried" excuse,
It's not an excuse, sorry, if political, economic, and social theoretics, fuck up your pathetic assertions, ;) .

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:27 pm
You've either never been to school in a liberal Western democracy or you are just a plain liar. In the USA for instance, the public schools are dominated by left wing teachers unions that elect the school boards.
Oh, don't feed us this tired out bullshit, I know for a fact, and from people that I have talked to, the American schools teach that only capitalist societies can thrive, and that the Communist nations, like the USSR, Mao China, Minh Vietnam, Cuba, and other such nations, everyone is poor, and ruled under a dictator, and that they are tremendous failures, unlike the pure white lambs of capitalist nations, not mentioning the fact that it is impossible for said nations to have a dictator, no one was starving or poor, and the USSR only failed due to capitalist reforms.

Don't sit here, and lie, and say that schools don't teach that capitalism, is right, and all forms of Leftist schools of thought, Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism, are all wrong, amoral, radical, and destructive, or do you prefer being intellectually dishonest?


Students are taught that the USA is "evil, genocidal, racist, Nazi, KKK, sexist, imperialist, fascist, blah blah blah etc." from the public schools all the way through the university level.

Bullshit, they are taught, that America is this infallible empire, that only seeks freedom, and democracy, and to spread that to all the little nations of the world, because that's America's duty as the "beacon of freedom," and that no matter what errors, or wrongs America commits, namely slavery, native American genocide, imperialism, and conquest, those are all just little errors, and were and are needed, and shouldn't be held against America, for it's white as snow.

Don't spin this, it won't work, and stop this idiotic conservative rhetoric, of "the schools are breeding pinkos and commies," ok? Or do you prefer to look like a stupid ass version of McCarthy?


Even American leftists boast that their wholly dominated educational enterprise is the "political base of the Left."

No they don't, I have not heard on Leftist American say this, infact even in this forum teenage American comrades complain about the lies told to them by their teachers against Leftist politics, and of historical, economic, political, data, history and theoretics, and that is a fact, check the learning section, to see this, I guarantee you will find a current thread regarding American schools and the lies being told about the USSR.


More mendacious excuses upon more piles of excuses. Leftists are the champions of making excuses because reality has delivered the verdict that communism is a horrendous failure.

No, it's a proven fact, that due to Gorbachev's capitalist reforms, it totally crushed the Soviets economy, which ultimately lead to the demise of the Soviet Union, which is a fact that of course you and other cappies readily deny, for very obvious reasons, these aren’t excuses, these are facts.


Leftists need to pretend that "communism has never been tried" as a means of breaking free from the shame of those communist disasters so they can be free to ruin more societies again.

No, Communism, IMO, has existed, however it was corrupted along the lines, but reforms, whom regressed back to the bourgeoisie and capitalist mentality, hence the "market Socialism," of Deng Xiaoping, and the capitalism of Gorbachev, but of course you would deny this, because you don't want your little theories, to be used against you when, they lead to the downfall of Communist nations, and such.


he he he
If according to leftists "the gulags were not communist at all" then why do leftists attempt to defend those "non-communist" communist concentration camps in the first place?

I didn't say they didn't happen under Communism, fuckwad, I said a lot of what you "know," about them is probably false.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 09, 2007 08:17 pm



First off, the reason why Marxists say, it has never been tried, or a nation was Communist but then it was corrupted, and thus stopped, is due to theory, not everything calling itself, and veiling itself in Socialism is truly Socialist, not to mention if you study closely you can see that Communist nations were corrupted, see the USSR which fell due to capitalist reforms, so I apologize that a little thing called theory, fucks up your strawmen arguments and assertion against Marxism.

Second, a lot of what is said about the gulags is historically inaccurate and false.
Okay, so the facts are that the THEORIES of Marxism have never been tried. Those regimes, governments ect who claim to be (have been) Marxists were just pretenders.

Fine.

But then how scientific can this theory truly be? The only conceivable outcome is that the theory is correct. Any outcome short of success is considered a misapplication of the theory. Just how scientific can it be in these circumstances?

[ZX3]

And a good question was asked in this thread:

Are the (proper) Marxists fighting to oppose and destroy castro?

[RNK]

There's much debate about that issue and it differs from person to person. It all boils down to who to believe. On the one hand, you have the US government and most Cuban exiles claiming Fidel's Cuba is a dictatorship. On the other, you have the Cuban government and non-Cuban visitors claiming that this is not the case. Personally I feel that the amount of defensiveness the Cubans have been forced to adopt because of US pressure is unfortunate, but probably completely necessary. It is unrealistic to expect any socialist state to abolish its state apparatus and declare open communism until the last capitalist has been removed from this planet. Until then, no communist can afford to let their guard down, and unfortunately it probably means that enforced socialist states like Cuba are necessary.

I also think that Cuba may slowly heading down the path of state capitalism.. though again, reports conflict. Some sources state this is the case, others state that any capitalist "injections" were only temporary and have since been eliminated. I think the only way any of us can make a proper judgement is to visit the damned place to have a look for ourselves. It is extremely cheap to do so, and most working people (in the US/Canada/Europe) can afford to do so for less than a month's wages.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:59 pm
There's much debate about that issue and it differs from person to person. It all boils down to who to believe. On the one hand, you have the US government and most Cuban exiles claiming Fidel's Cuba is a dictatorship. On the other, you have the Cuban government and non-Cuban visitors claiming that this is not the case. Personally I feel that the amount of defensiveness the Cubans have been forced to adopt because of US pressure is unfortunate, but probably completely necessary. It is unrealistic to expect any socialist state to abolish its state apparatus and declare open communism until the last capitalist has been removed from this planet. Until then, no communist can afford to let their guard down, and unfortunately it probably means that enforced socialist states like Cuba are necessary.

I also think that Cuba may slowly heading down the path of state capitalism.. though again, reports conflict. Some sources state this is the case, others state that any capitalist "injections" were only temporary and have since been eliminated. I think the only way any of us can make a proper judgement is to visit the damned place to have a look for ourselves. It is extremely cheap to do so, and most working people (in the US/Canada/Europe) can afford to do so for less than a month's wages.
Then it is realistic to conclude that the USSR et. al. was a true socialist community, in all its bloody glory. Socialism evolved there exactly as one could expect.

[Free Left]

Marx was frightened and confused by what he saw happening all around him. His fear and confusion produced a childish regression to what seemed to him a simpler gentler time.

Communism is actually not new.
Primitive, stone-age groups of hunters and gatherers that lived in small packs, with identifiable goals and familial connections, lived a communist existence.
They had no written language, no math, no science, no technology. They lived on land no one owned. They hunted animals and gathered fruits and berries no one owned. They had no monetary currency.

Back in the time when human beings were merely squatters on this Earth, communist homelessness was all they could muster

What?! Are you suggesting (for want of a better word) that Marx advocated a return to a tribal or nomadic existence??
Are you saying that Marx was scared of the development of human endeavour so much so that he would shun it?!

Read Marx before you fucking comment on Marx!!!