COMMUNISM - What kind of Communist are you?

[Xprewatik RED]

There are distinct groups of Communists on this board.
Debate your side of the story, and try and prove that yours is the dominant and reliable system.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Apparently I'm an Anarcho-Communist.

I don't know which parts of me are Communist and which are Anarchist.

[Just Joe]

I'm very sceptical over the possibilities of a Communist society, But pressed to chose I'd say the original Marxist model of popular revolution is the best option. Leninism has failed in so many countries the ideology is dead. Denounce those former 'Socialst' countries and call yourself a Trotskyite or embrace them and call yourself a Stalinist, It doesn't matter. There both sides of the same ideology. Maoism too.

[Comrade Raz]

I would not call myself an ism of any previous leaders (Lenninism, Stalinism etc.) because none of the nations that where governed by these people where havens and many people hated them.

I like to think i have my own ideas and do not completly agree with anyone before me. I think this is true of everybody.

My ideas are my own which are very close to but not the same as the ideas expressed by Marx and Engles in the Mannifesto.

[elijahcraig]

Marxist-Leninist(-Trotskyist)

[rAW DEaL bILL]

Anarcho-communist. i realise saying that is kinda reduntant because communism is in anarchy but because of these people calling themselves "anarcho-capitalists" which is an oxymoron, its kind of nessesary. i think anarchy is the best way because its simply offers the most freedom for everybody possible without there being chaos. some people even call it utopian, which i disagree with. because no person can be perfect, i think no idealogy can be either, but this is a close as it gets.

[Sandanista]

Im a marxist, theres no such thing as marxist leninist or trotskyist, they were marxists, stalinist are capitalists

[Blackberry]

Quote: from Sandanista on 1:02 am on July 11, 2003
Im a marxist, theres no such thing as marxist leninist or trotskyist, they were marxists, stalinist are capitalists

RedStar2000 goes to great lengths as to why leninists and trotskyists AREN'T marxists.

http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theory.php

[Palmares]

Read my signature... :cool:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't have a distinct title that i give myself. As far as how to implement Socialism, I am not very set in my ways. I may be a Marxist-Leninist because i have slightly more radical views than those of Marxists or Anarcho-Communists. Though, I see no way for the working class to rise to power under the rule of a totalitarian nationalistic leader, or under the rule of any plutarchal system, no matter how much it may claim to represent the proletariat.

[Sensitive]

I am a Marxist-Leninist.

[Iepilei]

internationalist democratic socialist.

the 3rd and 2nd worlds will ultimately bring the 1st to it's knees, as the first place to stop oppression of the workers is to start on the large scale and work your way down.

single established socialist nations will eventually crumble.

no representive vanguard will do. the working classes must work to educate themselves.

i am no leninist. i'm not a stalinist. i don't hide behind trotsky. i don't preach mao. i've never worshiped marx.

i am a only worker, and i've grown weary.

[commieboy]

i dont know what kind of specific communist i am. I'd say, the only ism that i can relate and accept as my own...is Castroism...up until a few weeks ago i didnt even know about castroism until i read it on someone's post. But Castro and i share the same beliefs.or atleast i think so.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 3:25 am on July 11, 2003
[quote]RedStar2000 goes to great lengths as to why leninists and trotskyists AREN'T marxists.



Redstar goes to great lengths to explain why all sorts of people who have called themselves socialists for hundreds of years, some of them before Marx, are not socialists. He also goes to lengths to explain why people who would put paedophiles behind bars for long periods are not.

Redstar is in fact in favour of Redstarism and will happily denounce anybody who disagrees, as not being either a socialist or a communist.

He is an anarcho-communist who wishes to dictate how people should think to the extent that he can see no reason not to misrepresent even the meaning of words if he thinks it will help him get his views accepted.

Like all anarchists he has no idea how Anarchy could ever be brought into existence and no concept of how to behave other than as a dictator.

Anarchy is a philosophy for intellectuals who wish to pontificate endlessly on how if everyone was nice the world would be nice. It sounds lovely and clever to support it, but it is quite possibly a bigger obstacle to ever establishing a Marxists order even than America is.

Anarchists like to regurgitate the books they have read and throw pointless little bricks. Thats about it.

I'm a marxist socialist in favour of making use of market mechanisms for regulating the supply of commodities.

Socialism will be achieved only if people in the west use the existing, though very imperfect, representative democratic systems to vote in a government which will impose Marxists socialism.

No successful major revolution will occur in the third world and be sustained because the powers of western governments to cripple such revolutions is now too great.

The only other mechanism that may help is if a socialist organisation starts to gradually aquire control of capitalist business interests. Which means running them as Capitalist businesses until socilsim is actually achieved.

And to achieve such a government all socialist need to pull together not be distacted by intellectual BS like Anarcho communism.

(Edited by sc4r at 12:05 am on July 13, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Redstar goes to great lengths to explain why all sorts of people who have called themselves socialists for hundreds of years, some of them before Marx, are not socialists.

Actually, that's not quite true. I haven't actually talked much at all about "socialists" and "socialism" and the varieties thereof. I prefer to speak of "communism" and "communists", as Marx and Engels did.

The reason for this is that what we have seen under the banner of "socialism" in the advanced capitalist countries has been nothing but vulgar reformism...especially since the end of World War I.

Everyone "understands" that, in the modern functional meaning of the word, when you speak of "socialism" you are harmless, but when you speak of "communism"--not to mention "anarchism"--you are (potentially) dangerous.

Redstar is in fact in favour of Redstarism and will happily denounce anybody who disagrees, as not being either a socialist or a communist.

I suppose it must look that way to anyone I criticize...but it can't be helped. I think theoretical clarity about what communism is and isn't is important...and that's bound to be irritating to those who would rather keep things fuzzy and obscure. Too bad.

He is an anarcho-communist who wishes to dictate how people should think to the extent that he can see no reason not to misrepresent even the meaning of words if he thinks it will help him get his views accepted.

It's pretty clear that this is one of my real "fans" speaking.(!)

Like all anarchists he has no idea how Anarchy could ever be brought into existence and no concept of how to behave other than as a dictator.

Someone once called me--jokingly, I think--an "anarcho-stalinist"...simply because I suggested that anyone who tries to give people orders should be taken out and summarily shot.

Anarchy is a philosophy for intellectuals who wish to pontificate endlessly on how if everyone was nice the world would be nice. It sounds lovely and clever to support it, but it is quite possibly a bigger obstacle to ever establishing a Marxists order even than America is.

You'd almost think you were reading Comrade RAF here...or that I copied this post from the "Lenin Wax Museum" thread.

"If only those fucking anarchists would go away, everything would be...nice".

Anarchists like to regurgitate the books they have read and throw pointless little bricks. Thats about it.

Yeah, you bastards, quit reading all those damn books! Keep that up and you'll starting thinking you know better than your rightful leaders! (And put down those bricks, dammit.)

I'm a marxist socialist in favour of making use of market mechanisms for regulating the supply of commodities.

At last, a positive statement. And what a statement it is.

Here is a "Marxist" who wishes to retain the market and the production of commodities for sale (and profit, presumably). Here is a version of "socialism" that will retain the economic laws that produced capitalism.

In other words, here is a perfect exercise in futility.

Socialism will be achieved only if people in the west use the existing, though very imperfect, representative democratic systems to vote in a government which will impose Marxists socialism.

Engels toyed a bit with this idea towards the end of his long life...but he had an excuse. Working class participation in capitalist politics was a "new" strategy that looked like it "might" work, especially in Germany.

To have people bring this up more than a century later is rather like suggesting that we design commercial airliner wings with feathers.

Or that we try breeding pigs with wings.

The only other mechanism that may help is if a socialist organisation starts to gradually aquire control of capitalist business interests. Which means running them as Capitalist businesses until socialism is actually achieved.

Just think, the American civil war was "unnecessary"...if only the slaves had pooled their money to gradually "buy themselves free".

Just think? Perhaps that's asking too much.

And to achieve such a government all socialists need to pull together, not be distracted by intellectual BS like Anarcho communism.

By all means, don't ever listen to a word I say--it's all a "distraction" from this splendidly "practical" goal of market "socialism" through capitalist elections and the purchase of shares in the stock market.

Why be distracted by my "intellectual bullshit" when you can get generic capitalist bullshit so much more easily? It's available at a website near you.

This is why I don't talk much about "socialism".

:cool:

[Just Joe]

Marx hated the market almost as much as he hated the system of ownership of a capitalist economy.

Why the hell would anyone get rid of a system where private individuals exploit you and rip you off, and exchange it for a system where the state rips you off? Thats market socialism for you. When things get ran for profit, there are only two ways of making money. 1)selling the goods for an over-inflated price therefore ripping off the consumer,2) produce the goods for a very low cost therefore ripping off the worker. I'd say the state doing this is only fractionally better because it can at least use that money to put to other uses rather than the present system where that money goes to private companies, but the system of economic exploitation is still there.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from sc4r on 11:58 pm on July 12, 2003

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 3:25 am on July 11, 2003
[quote]RedStar2000 goes to great lengths as to why leninists and trotskyists AREN'T marxists.



Redstar goes to great lengths to explain why all sorts of people who have called themselves socialists for hundreds of years, some of them before Marx, are not socialists. He also goes to lengths to explain why people who would put paedophiles behind bars for long periods are not.

Redstar is in fact in favour of Redstarism and will happily denounce anybody who disagrees, as not being either a socialist or a communist.

He is an anarcho-communist who wishes to dictate how people should think to the extent that he can see no reason not to misrepresent even the meaning of words if he thinks it will help him get his views accepted.

Like all anarchists he has no idea how Anarchy could ever be brought into existence and no concept of how to behave other than as a dictator.

Anarchy is a philosophy for intellectuals who wish to pontificate endlessly on how if everyone was nice the world would be nice. It sounds lovely and clever to support it, but it is quite possibly a bigger obstacle to ever establishing a Marxists order even than America is.

Anarchists like to regurgitate the books they have read and throw pointless little bricks. Thats about it.

I'm a marxist socialist in favour of making use of market mechanisms for regulating the supply of commodities.

Socialism will be achieved only if people in the west use the existing, though very imperfect, representative democratic systems to vote in a government which will impose Marxists socialism.

No successful major revolution will occur in the third world and be sustained because the powers of western governments to cripple such revolutions is now too great.

The only other mechanism that may help is if a socialist organisation starts to gradually aquire control of capitalist business interests. Which means running them as Capitalist businesses until socilsim is actually achieved.

And to achieve such a government all socialist need to pull together not be distacted by intellectual BS like Anarcho communism.

(Edited by sc4r at 12:05 am on July 13, 2003)


Sc4r I should stop now, if you disagree with him he will try and get you banned or locked in OI. He has tried that with both me and considerably more foolishly with Moskitto. Of course he claims that he never placed a foot wrong in that argument. However I have long concluded that RS2000 can never accept to being wrong... (no matter how stupid what he is saying, is) So just give up now as you may as well try to get blood from a stone.

PS out of interest are you a neo-puritan, a servile lacky of imperialism or a neo-capitalist, according to RS2000? Or has he creaded a new insult just for you?

[redstar2000]

Oh dear, it's the mighty and terrible AK47 back again to start another flame thread.

Still proud of your war, AK47? Still waving the Union Jack(off) at every opportunity?

Whether it's Belfast or Basra, we all know you'll be cheering on the "brave" soldiers...from as far behind the front lines as you can get.

Perhaps the administrators can give you a new title, like they do with the cappies: I will suggest Colonel Blimp.

Now go have a nice cuppa tea.

:cool:

By the way, does "AK" stand for All Krap?

[Som]

Scars views actually seem to quite reminscient of Proudhoun's, even though he's an anarchist. He did serve some time in the french national assembly though im not sure he considered himself much of an anarchist at the time. Probably the least 'left' of the anarchists.

He was a market socialist who opposed violent revolution and instead wanted to gradually replace the old economy with a new and socialist one by simply building it over.

Seems to me the same sort of reasoning and logistics as scars buy out the capitalist class, if you haven't yet dismissed him as another filthy intellectual anarchist bullshitter, you should do some reading on him and mutualism, his version of market socialism. I think you might like him.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:54 pm on July 14, 2003
Oh dear, it's the mighty and terrible AK47 back again to start another flame thread.

Still proud of your war, AK47? Still waving the Union Jack(off) at every opportunity?

Whether it's Belfast or Basra, we all know you'll be cheering on the "brave" soldiers...from as far behind the front lines as you can get.

Perhaps the administrators can give you a new title, like they do with the cappies: I will suggest Colonel Blimp.

Now go have a nice cuppa tea.

:cool:

By the way, does "AK" stand for All Krap?


Ohh dear what little quality you had before seems to have dropped.

Still proud of your war, AK47? Still waving the Union Jack(off) at every opportunity?

I dont think I actually own a Union Jack, I think I have the Flag of the Isle of Man somewhere, does that help?

But on a serious note I was in support of the invasion and removal of fascism, not the crushing of a country and the theft of its oil. I think that is where you fail to see the error of your comments.

Whether it's Belfast or Basra, we all know you'll be cheering on the "brave" soldiers...from as far behind the front lines as you can get.

:Yawn:...

Perhaps the administrators can give you a new title, like they do with the cappies: I will suggest Colonel Blimp.

I can think of one for you as well, how about "fascist" or "soon to be dead". Both I believe are true. Especially the latter if you believe that smoking will not kill you. Do Inform me of when you catch canser, I will send a get well soon card.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from AK47 on 9:03 pm on July 14, 2003

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:54 pm on July 14, 2003
Oh dear, it's the mighty and terrible AK47 back again to start another flame thread.

Still proud of your war, AK47? Still waving the Union Jack(off) at every opportunity?

Whether it's Belfast or Basra, we all know you'll be cheering on the "brave" soldiers...from as far behind the front lines as you can get.

Perhaps the administrators can give you a new title, like they do with the cappies: I will suggest Colonel Blimp.

Now go have a nice cuppa tea.

:cool:

By the way, does "AK" stand for All Krap?


Ohh dear what little quality you had before seems to have dropped.

Still proud of your war, AK47? Still waving the Union Jack(off) at every opportunity?

I dont think I actually own a Union Jack, I think I have the Flag of the Isle of Man somewhere, does that help?

But on a serious note I was in support of the invasion and removal of fascism, not the crushing of a country and the theft of its oil. I think that is where you fail to see the error of your comments.

Whether it's Belfast or Basra, we all know you'll be cheering on the "brave" soldiers...from as far behind the front lines as you can get.

:Yawn:...

Perhaps the administrators can give you a new title, like they do with the cappies: I will suggest Colonel Blimp.

I can think of one for you as well, how about "fascist" or "soon to be dead". Both I believe are true. Especially the latter if you believe that smoking will not kill you. Do Inform me of when you catch canser, I will send a get well soon card.

This could get interesting

"Communalist" would be a highly accurate description.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I do not wish to simplify myself to a simple category of of the left. I do identify as a radical and an anti-capitalist. I am rather comfortable identifying as a Marxist, because Marx was quite right particularly in his dissection of the capitalist system.

I do not go so far as to call myself a Marxist-Leninist. I have read a little bit by Vladimir Lenin, and I have found much merit in what I have read. However, I am not prepared to identify myself as a Leninist, for the simple reason that I do not think I know everything he stands for.

I do know all too well about the crimes of Josef Stalin. Aside from a few amazing quotations, I find his rhetoric rather useless. It all seems to reinforce his iron grip on the "Communist" world. I agree with Comrade Victorcommie when he says,


Though, I see no way for the working class to rise to power under the rule of a totalitarian nationalistic leader, or under the rule of any plutarchal system, no matter how much it may claim to represent the proletariat.


The only other mechanism that may help is if a socialist organisation starts to gradually aquire control of capitalist business interests. Which means running them as Capitalist businesses until socialism is actually achieved.

Just think, the American civil war was "unnecessary"...if only the slaves had pooled their money to gradually "buy themselves free".

I have to agree with Comrade redstar2000 that the notion of the workers buying themselves out of capitalist exploitation is one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard come out of an alleged radical leftist.

In conclusion, if I had to specify my political tendencies, I would be a revolutionary Marxist (redundant, I confess, but necessary in a world of Social Democrat-types using Marxist logic to justify weak reform) who likes the little Lenin he has read, despises Stalin and all he stands for, admires the third-world liberators Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro, knows too little about Trotsky or Mao to judge on, and thinks that Che Guevara is probably the greatest revolutionary to ever fly the banner of communism. And thus you see my dilemma... I cannot identify my philosophy in one or two words.

[Blackberry]

Sc4r: Like all anarchists he (RedStar2000) has no idea how Anarchy could ever be brought into existence and no concept of how to behave other than as a dictator.

RedStar2000: Someone once called me--jokingly, I think--an "anarcho-stalinist"...simply because I suggested that anyone who tries to give people orders should be taken out and summarily shot.

Classic!

And hopefully that puts an end to the 'dictator' tag that sc4r has been trumpeting.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 3:20 am on July 15, 2003
Sc4r: Like all anarchists he (RedStar2000) has no idea how Anarchy could ever be brought into existence and no concept of how to behave other than as a dictator.

RedStar2000: Someone once called me--jokingly, I think--an "anarcho-stalinist"...simply because I suggested that anyone who tries to give people orders should be taken out and summarily shot.

Classic!

And hopefully that puts an end to the 'dictator' tag that sc4r has been trumpeting.

This doesn't prove he isn't a dictator, it only proves that he wants to shoot people who want to become dictators, as people don't generally want themselves shot, whatever Redstar's true sentiments he is excempt from his own "ban on orders", Joseph Stalin did exactly the same thing, simply because he was the dictator and no one else should be.

[sc4r]

I have to agree with Comrade redstar2000 that the notion of the workers buying themselves out of capitalist exploitation is one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard come out of an alleged radical leftist.[/b]

First lets clear the easy bit up. I have no idea if I am a radical leftist or not. Certainly I have never alleged it, and the only people I have heard allege it about me included so many four letter words at the same time that I felt it inappropriate to enquire as to their precise meaning.

I dont really give much of a monkeys what particular label you pin on me. I call myself a Marxist Socialist because that seems to convey the gist of my core beliefs to most people who actually have any idea what any politcal isms are. If they are interested I can always clear up what I actually am by describing what it is I am.

Now to the more substantial and important bit :

first off I assume that it is the act of purchase that you find absurd in the idea. Once purchased all you have is common ownership of a means of production. Exactly what we all say we want. If we cant run things once purchased or prevent someone from becoming exploitative then socialism is impossible. Just pack up now. I dont believe this of course.

Now what is so absurd about the purchase itself? we offer to exchange some liquid capitalist rights (money) to a capitalist in exchange for the means of production he currently has rights to (the factory from now on), and thats it , we own it.

He now has the liquid rights (money) and can go off and either spent it on consumables or offer to exchange them with somebody else for some other means of production.

Which does not matter really, because the end result is that somebody somewhere down the line will exchange those rights for consumption goods; and it these that we have effectively foregone in order to aquire our factory.

And now we begin to use the factory for its purpose. To produce other consumption goods at a greater rate than our labour alone would. Obviously we sell many of the goods produced for money.

The money represents liquid rights again, and we can use it to purchase the consumption we need to survive, with, if we are running it well, some left over.

Which leaves us at a point where, if we are running the factory well , we will sooner or later accumulate enough unexchanged liquid rights to buy another factory, and double the rate at which we can grow.

We can repeat this as often as we like, and for so long as we are competent to produce an excess value of consumption goods from the factories.

There is nothing strange about how we are managing the factories. All we are doing is what any capitalist would do; using the resources available and our wits to ensure that the factories outputs exceed there inputs.

In fact the only difference at all is that because we have decided to set up 'Socialist Ltd' with the explicit aim of using all surpluses to expand, this is what they are used for. We set it up so that dividends are not distributed, and that salaries are regulated (this sort of set up would normally be called a foundation). We enshrine this in our company articles, and tie it down in law so that at no future point can it be changed.

Where is the absurdity? No socialist principle is being broken; No business principle is being avoided; and the end result, provided only that we produce or recruit competent workers, is that gradually more and more 'means of production' are in the control, of socialists not capitalists.

We are not yet actually functioning as a socialist society of course, we are not even trying to. We are not trying to give the option to our particpants to decide for themselves what to produce or whether to have leisure rather than work. That is not the objective at this stage.

The objective is simply to aquire an ever increasing share of the means of production. The things that allow wealth to be produced. And in doing so we come to control this wealth (or some of it). With it comes the power to decide how this wealth will be used to influence events (exactly what a capitalist does).

But of course we influence things in our preffered direction. We press for legislation that benefits other socialist ideas. We manipulate the media either directly through control of it, or through the advertising clout our wealth will purchase.

All of which means that come the crisis of transition from capitalist legislation in society to Socialist legislation, the Venezuala effect is minimised. Our factories dont shut down in protest, or work at half volume. Our media does not contain revisionist cries. We have gained stability.

There are things to be overcome of course : we do have to set the articles up right in the first place, we do have to ensure that our enterprise(s) remain under socialist control; we have to make sure that there are procedures to prevent the uncommited gaining control; but all these are problems which we would face following a revolution too; but in miniature (in fact it is a bloody useful rehearsal, another benefit).

We can set things up so that our workers (all of us) are paid as much or as little as we all like. The less we pay ourselves the faster we grow.

We can, if we like, set it up so that the management of the enterprise(s) is always under voting control of all workers; or we can establish a means to pass on leadership; or a hybrid. We can even set it up so that several methods are tried allowing us to choose the best performing one as the model for the full scale post revolution society.

The enterprises will come under pressures. Normal commercial ones, and extraordinary ones perhaps if committed capitalists wish to see these particular enterprises fail (personally I doubt that this will really happen, Capitalists care about expediency not ideology usually). But not insurmountable pressures.

In essence what we have done is 'nationalised' gradually. We buy the industries with our foregone consumption over time instead of attempting it in a fell swoop with blood. But it is the same basic principle.

Now honestly was that so absurd? I cant imagine I have left no unexplained bits, feel free to question. But please, questions based on 'How' or 'what if' etc; not ones based purely in the language of dogma.

Of course it IS possible that it IS absurd and I've missed some crucial point. In which case by all means tell me what. I'll be embarssed, but I will live.

Best wishes.


(Edited by sc4r at 12:16 am on July 18, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Xprewatik RED on 2:04 pm on July 10, 2003
There are distinct groups of Communists on this board.
Debate your side of the story, and try and prove that yours is the dominant and reliable system.



Don't you think actions could tell us which more dominant and reliable?

Because obviously sitting here talking about why the system we have chosen is better doesn't prove anything.

Someone could come here and write a wonderful peice about how great Utopianism is and why it'll work

but until a person can prove it works in real life it really is of little use.

The only reason we have for explaining our chosen system is to draw more in.

But seeing as how everyone here is so stubborn in their beliefs this is hardly the place to do so unless you are talking to an a-political newbie.

In the end all this thread boils down to is a "What is your ideology and why"

proving which system is the most reliable and dominant is impossible to do on a messege board because as of Now the most successful "communist society" was the soviet union and we don't even claim that because 1. it wasn't really communist and 2. it fell.

Actions will always speak louder than words and until someone actually acts no system is dominant

[sc4r]

(Edited by sc4r at 12:30 am on July 18, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I assume that it is the act of purchase that you find absurd in the idea. Once purchased all you have is common ownership of a means of production. Exactly what we all say we want. If we cant run things once purchased or prevent someone from becoming exploitative then socialism is impossible. Just pack up now. I dont believe this of course.

It is certainly possible and even practical for a group of workers to purchase a functioning business and run it anyway they please. If I'm not mistaken, The Economist ran an article a few years ago about a company in England that is the largest manufacturer of surgical instruments in Europe and is owned and managed by its employees. It's also, again if I'm not mistaken, been around for decades. The account I read suggested that it's a wonderful place to work.

That probably suggests the difficulty, even in a "best case scenario". A group of workers who managed to organize such an enterprise would quickly see the immediate benefits of such an arrangement; why then would they reduce or eliminate such gains in order to benefit another group of workers? They truly would be "bourgeois-workers" (a hybred-class) and would likely consider themselves truly "superior" to the poor sods who were still working at regular companies. (I have no way of knowing, of course, but I suspect that English worker-owned factory recruits its young workers from the competent sons and daughters of the existing work force...inheritance would logically follow from such an arrangement.)

That's the best case; the experience in Yugoslavia is even less promising. Many workplaces (or enterprises) were effectively owned and managed by the workers who happened to be there as of a certain date (when the central government released control); almost at once, the workers who were the initial beneficiaries of this move set up barriers against "new hires" enjoying the same benefits...not only lower financial compensation but less or no voice in management decisions. Eventually--that is within a few years--you did indeed have "workers" exploiting workers.

This suggests to me that the idea of "ownership" is, in and of itself, incompatable with any form of socialism or communism; that is, the "feeling of ownership" matched with the actual ability to make "ownership-type decisions" leads directly to capitalist or quasi-capitalist consciousness. This has not yet happened in the English factory mentioned above...but at some point it ought to.

In theoretical terms, the workers in a particular workplace must indeed be "in control of" that workplace and must "manage" it directly...but that is not the same as "ownership" and should not be confused with the latter.

The point is not to transfer ownership from the capitalist class to the working class; it is to abolish private property in the means of production altogether, in any form. The means of production will "belong" to everyone collectively...the use of those means of production will be decided by the people that work there and the people that need what they produce. No doubt this will generate many arguments; classless society will be very argumentative.

Not unlike message boards, though the stakes will be considerably higher.

:cool:

[sc4r]

Ok we are perhaps getting somewhere. Thanks for posting a reasoned response.

I think you are misunderstanding the suggestion. Not grossly, but in a subtle way which matters. However it will make more sense before I address that to tackle the overall question of ownership. It seems to me that if you cannot sustain your idea that 'common ownership' somehow doesn’t really mean 'ownership' you are going to have to re-evaluate your whole position. Some of what follows may seem like I'm teaching people to suck eggs, but I don’t know what everyone clearly understands and if you do miss any of this then things are going to be distorted, so:

All ownership of a business (you can call it an enterprise, or a means of production or anything you like, it makes no difference) means is the right to make decisions about what it does. Basically decisions about what happens to its assets.

That’s it. That covers ownership entirely from a practical stance.

It doesn't mean you can make any decision you like of course; some decisions are prohibited by law; some can be prohibited by contract and enforced by law, and some are prohibited by circumstances (deciding to exchange £1 for a new truck obviously cant be done).

Decisions have to be made. Even if it is only the decision to effect exactly the same decisions you made yesterday. Nothing runs without decisions.

It does not matter what political system you are operating within; this basic description applies.

So I'm afraid all the notion that follows does is to substitute different wording for the exact same concept. I'm truly sorry but that really is all you have done.

In theoretical terms, the workers in a particular workplace must indeed be "in control of" that workplace and must "manage" it directly...but that is not the same as "ownership" and should not be confused with the latter.

You do give a very slim justification for why ownership within a Marxist society might lead to different consequences than ownership by socialists within a capitalist one - that the 'feeling' of ownership would be different. Again I'm sorry, that is way too tenuous and vague an idea to hang the contention of there being a fundamental difference in how people will behave on. You don’t even describe in what way the feeling is different, you just say it is – not nearly enough even for prima facie objection, sorry.

All this is rather highlighted by the fact that in the very next paragraph when describing how things will be in post capitalist society you slip back into the language of owning things ('belonging to everyone collectively' expresses exactly the same meaning as 'owned by everyone collectively'). You cant really express any difference, because there just isn't one.

I suspect you desperately want there to be a difference, because if there is not you feel that there must be something else wrong with your argument somewhere; but you cant express it even when you try hard to.
.
.

Now I’m going to do you a favour and say that something does differ in pre and post transition businesses. You come close to alluding to it, but you do not follow the hint up:

Post transition : everyone is an owner. Nobody then can look around and say ‘in this respect I am different from non owners’’ or ‘ heck look at those other owners they can do things I cant just because I’m a socialist owner’.

I’m going to call pre transition owners revolutionary owners from now on.

But can you conclude from this either that revolutionary owners will: 1) oppress workers; 2) or neglect the business; 3) or renounce Socialism?

1) You give one answer to this in your post – There do not have to be any non- owners within the business. It may be true that new workers might not be offered the same terms if the business articles made this an option, but you don’t have to provide the opportunity, you can set up the articles of your business or foundation so that this is prevented from the outset.

The second answer connects to the subtle misunderstanding I said you had made at the outset. IT DOES NOT MATTER! The purpose of this business is not to provide cozy conditions for it’s workers, but to provide a base from within which transition can be eased. So in effect this question resolves into being just question 3.

2) Also resolves into 3, since the behaviour of anybody who simply neglects the enterprise is identical with deliberate sabotage; it is dealt with by the same mechanisms.

3) The simple answer is that some will. It’s inevitable. In which case their choices are : to move on and further their careers elsewhere – so what, let em go; remain anyway and continue to an effective job – who cares what they think in that case, it’s what they do that matters; attempt to sabotage the enterprise – Now unless one really is totally off with fairies one has to think that this can happen post transition too. So quite simply if can be prevented then we can deal with it pre transition, It isn’t very hard to conceive of a ‘no confidence procedure’ to force someone out if they were thought to be like this, enshrined in the articles.

Is it especially likely? In other words is there anything which makes this such an obviously widespread likelihood, that it is futile to imagine anything ever being achieved. The answer must be no. If you believe it is possible to develop strong binding loyalties to socialist progress in general, then there is no reason I can see to think it cannot be developed here. Our revolutionary owners are not paying themselves fortunes, any surplus profits are being used to fund aquisitions. Nor can these revolutionary owners decide to liquidate and benefit from it (we set it up so that if they ever do the proceeds don’t go to them).

In point of fact there is good reason to think these people will develop a stronger allegiance to the cause than would be expected from others – they are working daily within an environment whose goals and purpose is to advance socialism. It is their whole raison d’etre. They think about it and identify with the goals just by virtue of working towards them all the time (just as many many people develop a quite inexplicable loyalty towards companies which quite often don’t even treat them with dignity).


Conclusions:

Your basic objection that ownership has a different meaning actually has zero substance.

The anecdotal objections are dealt with simply because you subtly misunderstood the purpose of the enterprises, how revolutionary workers are rewarded, and how unimportant it is to ensure ‘equality’ within the businesses. They are not intended to be socialist, but to work towards it.

There is no reason to assume that our revolutionary owners are going to be any less committed than the revolutionary educators you propose. Actually there is some reason to think they may be more committed. If your ideas will work at all so can this one.

The idea that this is ‘absurd’ can be dismissed entirely just because of the incredibly tenuous and speculative nature of the objections you have been able to muster.

Work would need to be done to explore the possible pitfalls and make sure they are blocked off at the outset, but this is no different in principle to making anything else work.

One would probably want to set up not one but many separate ‘Socialist enterprises’ so that a failure of one for whatever reason did not end the entire project – so what?

All we actually need is for someone to volunteer to start it.

[redstar2000]

You do give a very slim justification for why ownership within a Marxist society might lead to different consequences than ownership by socialists within a capitalist one - that the 'feeling' of ownership would be different. Again I'm sorry, that is way too tenuous and vague an idea to hang the contention of there being a fundamental difference in how people will behave on. You don’t even describe in what way the feeling is different, you just say it is – not nearly enough even for prima facie objection, sorry.

No, I think that "ownership" is actually quite different from "control"...though in many practical ways the two ideas can overlap.

If I'm sitting in the public library using one of their computer terminals, I am "controlling" it for a certain period of time...within the limits of the installed software and my own knowledge, I am telling it what to do every second I'm there.

But it isn't "mine" in the sense that my home computer is. I can't install new software on a whim. I can't pick it up and take it home with me or modify the operating system in such a way that no one can ever use it again except me.

When we say that we "own" something, we implicitly assert that it is "ours" to do with whatever we please. Naturally, there are "real world" limitations on that "global" inference...I "could" run "my" car over a cliff, but the consequences would be unpleasant. I "could" neglect basic maintenance...but that would simply mean I was rendering what is "mine" to be eventually useless. I "could" operate it in an especially unsafe or wreckless manner...with more unpleasant consequences.

Nevertheless, however "abstract" those possibilities might be, they are "part" of what is enfolded within the "feeling" of "ownership".

It occurs to me that there is a very good word to summarize the different relationship that will prevail under communism: trusteeship. Workers will manage and control their workplaces...but as trustees for the whole of communist society, not as owners of each individual workplace.

I think, as I indicated, that the responsibilites of trusteeship will be enforced by the sanctions of the larger networks that a particular workplace would find itself. In the event of gross negligance of those responsibilities, questions would eventually be raised, controversies would ensue, and the particular group of fuckups might eventually be deprived of the use of the social property that they have been misusing.

It may be possible to "simulate" this sort of thing under capitalism with a mass of red tape restrictions on the structure of a "socialist-owned" business...attempting to successfully anticipate and thwart every possible manifestation of capitalist consciousness. Trusteeships do have a place in the bourgeois legal codes and, not being an attorney, I know of no limits on how restrictive they can be made.

But I think the "feeling" of "ownership" would arise anyway, "naturally", as a result of operating in a capitalist world...and once arisen, a "legal" way would eventually be found to bring it into the real world, into the "socialist" business itself. That may seem excessively "cynical" to some; I think it's Marxist.

If anyone agrees with sc4r's "practical road to socialism", by all means, give it a try and see how things work out. It's always possible that everything that sc4r says about me is true--"idealistic", "impractical", "utopian", etc.

That's the chance we all take, no matter what we do or don't do. We can try for what we really want--and possibly fail--or we can try for something less, and possibly succeed...or fail at that too.

Perhaps it's as much a matter of temperament as it is of rational argument. Some hate the prevailing social order with such intensity that we want to bring it down...by any means necessary. Others are quite willing to struggle for gradual improvements for an indefinite period into the future.

These sorts of disputes broke out before Marx's corpse was cold and have continued ever since.

What I want is communist revolution and classless society.

What do you want?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 11:17 pm on July 18, 2003)

[sc4r]

Fine, we will make the 'revolutionary owners' trustees rather than 'owners' then.

Problem solved according to you.

Great.

Merely messing about with words rather than underlying realities as you are consistently doing to justify your objections and ideas sounds 'cool' alright. but what it really is is deparate and dogmatic.

[redstar2000]

Merely messing about with words rather than underlying realities as you are consistently doing to justify your objections and ideas sounds 'cool' alright. but what it really is is desparate and dogmatic.

Do I indeed "mess about with words"? Perhaps that is for others to decide; in my own view, I try to use them as precisely and carefully as I can. For what it's worth, people on this board have rarely said that "they don't understand" what I'm trying to say...and some have been so kind as to praise my clarity. I think I'll accept that judgment, for the time being.

Do I indeed "sound cool"? Glad to hear it.

Am I really "desparate"? You seem to feel that way far more than I...judging by your posts.

Am I "dogmatic"? If by that you mean that I stubbornly refuse to "sign on" to your reformist brain-farts, I plead guilty without remorse.

I remind you again of the fact that far more people agree with you than agree with me at this time. If your idea is as good as you think it is, you should have no problem finding people who want to implement it. To speak as if I constituted some incredible obstacle to your schemes, someone who must be discredited by any means necessary...is simply childish and a waste of your time.

I have already said it: you and those who agree with you should proceed at once on your chosen path and discover through experience whether I was right or not.

My purpose here is not to "convert" reformists into revolutionaries; it is to assist those who wish to become revolutionaries in whatever way I can.

You don't like that? Go cry in your beer.

:cool:

[sc4r]

There are not 'many' people who agree with me. There are very few, hardly surprising since this idea has only just been mooted.

There may be as few as one other person in the entire world who supports it at this time (I forget the posters name, who posted a very similar idea here).

Now quit it with the supercilious BS about 'shut up and do it', What I intend to do is 'talk about it and do it'. But since right now it is just a very outline plan doing it and talking about it are actually the same thing at the moment.

I stand by my assessment of your defects. Your popularity with a largish percentage of a very very small, not terribly well informed, very young and idealistic group of people means little. You are telling them what they want to hear; and so of course they are easily fooled into accepting it.

But it wont cut it in the wider world of people who are not merely sceptical but very sceptical.


(Edited by sc4r at 1:55 am on July 20, 2003)

[Moskitto]

I stand by my assessment of your defects. Your popularity with a largish percentage of a very very small, not terribly well informed, very young and idealistic people means little. You are telling them what they want to hear; and so of course they are easily fooled into accepting it.

But it wont cut it in the wider world of people who are not merely sceptical but very sceptical.

It is a known fact that if you tell people what they want to hear they will believe you more readily than if you don't, that is why the Atkins diet is so popular, because it tells people what they want to hear (junk food makes you thin, boring food makes you fat.)

[sc4r]

If I'm sitting in the public library using one of their computer terminals, I am "controlling" it for a certain period of time...within the limits of the installed software and my own knowledge, I am telling it what to do every second I'm there.

But it isn't "mine" in the sense that my home computer is. I can't install new software on a whim. I can't pick it up and take it home with me or modify the operating system in such a way that no one can ever use it again except me.

When we say that we "own" something, we implicitly assert that it is "ours" to do with whatever we please. Naturally, there are "real world" limitations on that "global" inference...I "could" run "my" car over a cliff, but the consequences would be unpleasant. I "could" neglect basic maintenance...but that would simply mean I was rendering what is "mine" to be eventually useless. I "could" operate it in an especially unsafe or wreckless manner...with more unpleasant consequences.

Nevertheless, however "abstract" those possibilities might be, they are "part" of what is enfolded within the "feeling" of "ownership".

Errrrr yes, control and ownership do mean different things and overlap. So? No-one would say you owned the computer precisely because of the extreme limitations on what you can control that you yourself mention. But the limitations on my ‘revolutionary trustees’ are much, much less severe.

Saying that ‘ownership’ implies that we feel we are free to do what we please actually tells me nothing other than that you can speak English. The real fact is that ownership does not mean we are free to do exactly as we like with anything. What we can do is limited by law and limited by circumstance (exactly as I already explained when talking directly about ownership). All you are doing here is explaining that we say ‘I own’ it implies a good bit more freedom than ‘I control’. This demonstrates flat nothing because nobody ever doubted it.

Or to put it more directly all you have done is evade the actual question by ‘explaining’ self-evident truths.

Rather peculiarly you also do not seem to realise that our notions of 'ownership', our intutive grasp of what the concept means are very heavily influenced by the fact we live in liberal societies which have enshrined the liberal definition of ownership in law. But very crucially this very law allows for 'ownership rights' to be modified by contract. Exactly what I am suggesting be done.

The idea is not to convey to the trustees that they own the enterprise under Liberal law, but to convey to them that they do in fact as as trustees for the real owner (which would be the socialist movement).
.
.
It occurs to me that there is a very good word to summarize the different relationship that will prevail under communism: trusteeship. Workers will manage and control their workplaces...but as trustees for the whole of communist society, not as owners of each individual workplace.

I think, as I indicated, that the responsibilites of trusteeship will be enforced by the sanctions of the larger networks that a particular workplace would find itself. In the event of gross negligance of those responsibilities, questions would eventually be raised, controversies would ensue, and the particular group of fuckups might eventually be deprived of the use of the social property that they have been misusing.

It may be possible to "simulate" this sort of thing under capitalism with a mass of red tape restrictions on the structure of a "socialist-owned" business...attempting to successfully anticipate and thwart every possible manifestation of capitalist consciousness. Trusteeships do have a place in the bourgeois legal codes and, not being an attorney, I know of no limits on how restrictive they can be made.

But I think the "feeling" of "ownership" would arise anyway, "naturally", as a result of operating in a capitalist world...and once arisen, a "legal" way would eventually be found to bring it into the real world, into the "socialist" business itself. That may seem excessively "cynical" to some; I think it's Marxist.

What does not seem to have occurred to you is that you have just explained that in fact the owners of these post Marxist enterprises are not the ‘trustees’ but everyone in the society. The very thing you were originally claiming was not so. Who owns a thing - The person who is entrusted with operating it (your trustees)? Or the people who can ultimately decide what to do with it (your ‘larger network’)? We never say normally that someone owns something if there is somebody else who can exercise greater control if they choose. That’s what bloody ownership means.

All you are really saying of substance is that it might be difficult to retain the original socialist purpose and commitment of a business such as I describe. Yes it might, I said so earlier. I also gave some reasons how and why such a risk could be contained. I have no doubt whatsoever that further work would need to be done to identify other risks and contain them too. So?

And of course everything you say about subversion of people and goals applies in spades to your ‘plan’ (educate the workers). The most extreme differences being that you have not said a word about how that risk could be managed and consistently avoid addressing the very real question of why such education should take in the face of determined counter education.

Just because it is 'correct' ? Dont be ludicrous. One look at the hold religion has had through the ages shows that you need a whole lot more than being right to convince people.
.
.
You are not a planner; you are a dreamer. You look at what you would like to see come into existence and wax lyrical about how wonderful it would be; but you offer almost no practical suggestions about how it could be achieved. All you do is accept that it will, and council an almost impossibly vague strategy for making it so.

Worse than that you are destructive in the worst way. You look for objections to doing (or even examining) anything that does not seem perfect to you. You submerge the actual objection within a sea of explanation that sounds reasonable (because what you are actually explaining often is reasonable, even obvious, but is joined to the objection itself only by the most tenuous of links). Essentially you hide the join (often by invoking a dogmatic slogan to cover it) as a conjuror hides the sleight of hand. This works with people who don’t want to see the trick but wont convince anyone else.

The only part of what you are saying here that I do agree with is that ‘Trustee’ is a much better term than ‘owner’ for those who control my ‘socialist enterprises’. It expresses the nature of their ‘ownership’ and its purpose better, and would probably serve to put a psychological brake on any tendency for them to forget their purpose. Which rather demonstrates that if you allowed yourself to be helpful you could be of great help. I don’t think you are a fool, I think you are rather clever, but I think you are using this talent very very badly if you actually do want a Marxist society.

My only doubt is whether you have fooled yourself too. I actually suspect strongly that you have. Which makes me feel cruel attacking you, but you are far too good at convincing others to be as passive as you are (while sounding very militant of course), and far too ready to denounce anyone preaching a less passive message for me to want to let you continue doing so without even trying to oppose it.

Perhaps it's as much a matter of temperament as it is of rational argument. Some hate the prevailing social order with such intensity that we want to bring it down...by any means necessary. Others are quite willing to struggle for gradual improvements for an indefinite period into the future.

Fucking hell this is gob-smackingly laughable. I had to read it 4 times to be sure I had properly understood it. You are actually claiming that your timescale (150 years is what you have previously estimated) and your plan (wait for capitalist society to self destruct and in the meantime educate people) shows an intense urgency !??? While those who say ‘do that too but also do other things’ are slow plodders prepared to wait forever !???

It’s not me who is prepared to wait chummy; it’s you. I’m not the one counselling patience, quite the reverse.

There are some who do not counsel even as much patience as I do - those who advocate militant action, those who would encourage the destruction of infrastructures and would (presumably) accept any loss of life or wealth that might result from encouraging ‘imperialist wars’ and the discontent and disorder that this would create. My impression was that you were not one of those; certainly you have vociferously and explicitly rejected the war part very recently.

Again it’s down to you being a word chopper. You will use the language of fiery revolution, and advocate the destruction of things in the abstract. But as soon as it comes to any specific thing it becomes ‘Oooo people join with me in condemning this loss of life, look at me I’m soo nice and perfect, everything I suggest is lovely and ethical’. It allows you to seem all things to all men; except those who want to actually do anything.
.
.
What I want is communist revolution and classless society.

I don’t really believe you (or more accurately I think you delude even yourself). I think what you really want is to continue talking about it and boosting your ego by displaying your intellectual knowledge. You want I think to teach; to be acknowledged as a leader; and to control. The problem for us is that you have entrenched yourself in such a deep hole that climbing out of it would, you fear, mean losing the respect you have built up. It would mean saying ‘OMG I have been wrong’, this you cannot accept.
.
.

To me the illusory nature of your reasoning is betrayed most obviously by the sheer number of times you fall back on declaring that ‘this is Marxism’, ‘You are an Imperialist’, ‘This is a dictatorship of the proletariat’, ‘That is reactionary’, etc. etc.

Slogans in debate set off my BS alarm. Usually they cover up a weak underlying argument.



(Edited by sc4r at 1:06 pm on July 20, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 1:12 pm on July 20, 2003)

[redstar2000]

I stand by my assessment of your defects. Your popularity with a largish percentage of a very very small, not terribly well informed, very young and idealistic group of people means little. You are telling them what they want to hear; and so of course they are easily fooled into accepting it.

I know how it must feel; I've often been tempted to attribute people's failure to accept my ideas to the fact that some faker has been telling them "things they want to hear" and thereby "fooling them".

But that really won't fly, you know, especially not here. As a "population sample", it would be very difficult to find 5,000 people who were "better informed" about political and economic questions and theories. They may be young, of course...and that might be part of the reason why they are interested in this stuff. For one reason or another (possibly intelligence), the normal "brainwashing" that takes place in capitalist society didn't "work" on them (or "worked" only partially).

But if you think I dragged them all in off the street and beguiled their innocent minds with my seductive dogmatism...well, you have a very strange way of looking at things, to put it mildly.

Believe it or not, talking to the serious people here "stretches" me intellectually, compels me to think more clearly about my views and the best way to articulate them...and even, on occasion, to give serious consideration to other possible outlooks.

That's not the case, of course, with yourself (or people who will grow up to be like you, such as AK47 or Moskitto). You are not utterly incapable of rational argument, but it appears to me that any serious and extended disagreement with your reformism provokes personal abuse on your part that steadily escalates with the passing of time.

Very well. There's nothing I can do about that except to hope that eventually you'll get tired of it and go away...which you will, in all likelihood.

But my guess, in the meantime, is that fewer and fewer people here will even bother to take you seriously. Reformism doesn't have much appeal here to begin with, and your weasling on U.S. imperialism won't help matters either. Calling me names might be good for a few chuckles...but that's not much of a "long-range strategy".

It seems to me that there must be many message boards where your views would not only be accepted but celebrated...and where your reformist schemes would be approved and possibly even a beginning made towards practical implementation. Why don't you seek out such boards and join them?

Do you have the "itch" to "convert" revolutionaries into reformists? Do you like being the "center of attraction"? ("repulsion" might become a better word.) Is it possible that you think that discrediting me personally will achieve those objectives?

Revolutionaries have always been vilified by those who oppose the idea of revolution itself. So call me as many names as you wish...it will change nothing, nor will it win your ideas any additional support.

I suspect, in fact, that the more reformist abuse I get...the better I look.

Something to think about.

:cool:

[sc4r]

I wondered when this would surface 'bugger off to another board'.

Took longer than I expected, but I knew it would come.

The idea that there are 5000 people posting here let alone 4995 in agreement with you is a joke to raise a guffaw of cosmic proportions.

As frankly is the idea that everyone is terribly well informed. Quite a few are well educated in Marxist literature, but even amongst those not many seem well educated in wider political and economic realities.

People who ask 'what is the difference between socialism and Liberalism'; 'I cant see why they would do any work'; or say 'I would ban money'; etc etc etc. are not informed, they are learning. This is the most common sort of post here. The second most common is a reply taken almost verbatim from socialist and communist teaching. This indicates knowlege(of Marxism) not understanding.
.
.
You sem to have missed the point that I didn't simply say 'You are wrong, all you are doing is telling people what they want to hear'. I explained (and always have) why you are wrong and then pointed out that your defence which was 'lots agree with me' is weak in the extreme. It was, in other words, you who raised the subject of support. All I did was highlight what a piss poor argument that was.
.
.
The bottom line for you is that unless you succeed in getting me thrown out I will continue to post my ideas here and will continue to attack your ideas when they seem wrong or useless. We will continue to have personal exchanges unless you drop your fondness for declaring me to be 'an imperialist sympathiser' and all sorts of similar insults.

You see when someone says I am 'weaseling on US imperialism' I'm inclined to see ****** red. How much time do you personally put into opposing 'US imperialism' in places where you do not have the overwhelming support of almost everyone and moderators who will back you up if one of the cappies gets a bit too rough for your taste? I do it where I have to put up with an immense amount of personal abuse (being accused of dogma would not even register on the radar so mild would it be) and fight to get the potentially convertable people to listen to me. If I was not totally rational and fair in what I do say noone would listen.

But I am, and so they do. I have succeeded in getting died in the wool Republicans to accept that socialism should not be rejected as impractical. I have persuaded at least one person who once declared himself to be 'anti all liberal and fucking socialist crap' to actually become one (it took 2 years); I have peruaded at least one 'objectivist' that 'socialism probably should be given a try, maybe it could work after all'.

You dont do this by by refusing to acknowlege the parts of what they say that is right on 'ideological grounds'; you do it by resolutely addressing only substance.

Anytime you wish to debate substance rather than slogans I will. I'll probably continue to control my temper with you somewhat and occasionally try to steer our dialogues back to substance (as I did orginally in this thread).

There is a difference between this forum and RGL. That forum is entirely dominated by people with your views and is very small. Its a waste of my time to try and convince anyone there, so I wont do it. This one is not like that. It has many visitors, and many of them have made an initial commitment to Socialism without (despite your claims) having made a deep commitment to airy fairy communism. They can be persuaded to do something useful perhaps, and I intend to try and persuade them.

There are few revolutionaries here. In fact it is the most bizarre term I have ever heard someone who actually preaches only education apply to themself. There are plenty who say the fiery words, thats not at all the same thing.

I do not come here to have my ego massaged by friends, I come here to learn and to persuade and to test ideas. I do the same elsewhere. Here I would attempt to persuade socialists to be part of a useful socialist movement; elsewhere I would try to persuade moderate liberals to become Socialists (or at least to accept it and know the trth about it).

If I wanted to go somewhere to feel warm and friendly I'd go down the pub.

Get used to it. You wont provoke me into an unwise slanging match with you as you did with Moskitto, which means that if you are going to use your influence to get at me, its going to have to be via an 'asshole' clause. I have faith that you would not carry such a motion; but if you did it would prove that you have indeed gained enough personal support to allow you to practise your peculiarly authoritarian version of anarcho-socialist attitudes.

I dont like you Redstar. You dont like me. But telling me to piss off is not going to work for you any more than it works for the far right conservatives on mixed boards when they try it. They also of course claim that 'noone listens to you', 'you are a disgrace', etc.

If you can manage to declare yourself 'the winner' you will have the full set of pointless declarations in the bag. I have faith that you are not quite so silly as to descend to that level, but who knows.

And finally while it is nice of you to acknowlege that I'm not completely brain dead, It was somewhat damning by very faint praise. I dont need you to to re-assure people on that point, Ta muchly.


(Edited by sc4r at 4:02 pm on July 20, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 4:05 pm on July 20, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

RS2000 does not really have a large following as such, in the recent months he has consistantly failed to get his way on several issues, attempting to get Moskitto banned for example. Those who RS2000 in that specific case are genneraly the sheep of Che-lives. People without enough initiative to make up there own minds. A well written line from a person with the writting skills of RS2000 easily sways them towards the writer. Dont get me wrong RS2000, I am not slagging you for it quite the oppersit, it is a great skill. This group though seams to be waning in recent times, as even they see how foolish some of your arguments are, (such as the smoking one) however I personnaly find your abortion arguments to be excelent. However there are a vast number of people who disagree with you on that. The same with most of your other arguments, (most of which I disagree with).

[elijahcraig]

I appreciate people like redstar, who actually debate the issue, rather than say "stupid dumbass" or any of that idiocy. We have "communists" here supporting the iraq war, also people arguing for Stalin, etc. They don't even debate, it's just idiocy. I am a Marxist-Leninist, but I debate the issue instead of calling redstar names or that sort of thing.

[Pingu]

i am just a religious anarchist


By the way, i have read Marx his Communisme Manifest and i can't agree with his theory.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Pingu on 9:55 am on July 26, 2003
i am just a religious anarchist


By the way, i have read Marx his Communisme Manifest and i can't agree with his theory.

Religion I disagree with and anarchy I believe is impossible to ever actually achive. But welcome to the forum anyhow. So what religion do you follow?

PS I love the name and avatar, Pingu rocks, especially for a plastacene penguin.

[Pingu]

I am Christian, left-sided of course.


P.S. Duh, Pinguins are cool, and Pingu is sweet :)