TomK vs. NoXion (split from Religion)

[Bud Struggle]

.

And on the issue of abortion - if you don't like them, then don't have one.

Kind of like Capitalist owned factories--if you don't like them, don't own them. :D But let ME be free to own one. ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Kind of like Capitalist owned factories--if you don't like them, don't own them. :D But let ME be free to own one. ;)

:rolleyes: Unlike abortion, the question of the ownership of the means of production
effects everybody.

[Bud Struggle]

:rolleyes: Unlike abortion, the question of the ownership of the means of production
effects everybody.

My ownership of a factory only effects you if you choose to work for me. Otherwise we are not connected in the slightest. You are always free to work for me, work for someone else, work for yourself or start your own company and own you own means of production. You have quite the laundry list of choices on how to manage you life, as do I. A myriad of choices is the best possible system.

What I do with my time, treasure and talent should have no affect on what you do with your life unless you choose to work for me.

Your choice.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My ownership of a factory only effects you if you choose to work for me. Otherwise we are not connected in the slightest. You are always free to work for me, work for someone else, work for yourself or start your own company and own you own means of production. You have quite the laundry list of choices on how to manage you life, as do I. A myriad of choices is the best possible system.

What I do with my time, treasure and talent should have no affect on what you do with your life unless you choose to work for me.

Your choice.

It isn't the effect of individual ownership of factories that concerns me - it's the effect of wholesale practice of private ownership of the means of production. Especially if said means of production produce goods that everybody needs, for example, foodstuffs, clothing, and shelter. We have more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet twice over, but that doesn't happen because it's not profitable to do so.

[Bud Struggle]

It isn't the effect of individual ownership of factories that concerns me - it's the effect of wholesale practice of private ownership of the means of production. Especially if said means of production produce goods that everybody needs, for example, foodstuffs, clothing, and shelter. We have more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet twice over, but that doesn't happen because it's not profitable to do so.

See, I don't blame the economic system for starvation. I think markets are found everywhere people can be found and production is found everwhere people are found. I honestly see the problem as political. Despots the world over, both "Communistic" and "Capitalistic" (notice my quotation marks,) in order to keep themselves in power control the free flow of goods to their people. They start wars to stay in power they starve people to stay in power. They achieve power and stay in power by any means they can.

What the world needs is systems of government that LIMIT the despotic nature of "leaders." And here you will think I am crazy: That is exactly what George Bush is trying to do in Iraq. We were wrong to invade--but now that we are there Bush is trying to create a government, loaded with rules and regulations and piles of democracy that prevent a guy like Saddam from ever coming to power again. A far feched scheme, to be sure, but one based in good intention.

What the world needs more of is Parlamentary Democracy and less of "leaders", "Furhers", "First Secretaries," and anything similar. The economic system is and will always be Capitalistic--but the political systems need not always be authoritarian.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

See, I don't blame the economic system for starvation. I think markets are found everywhere people can be found and production is found everwhere people are found. I honestly see the problem as political. Despots the world over, both "Communistic" and "Capitalistic" (notice my quotation marks,) in order to keep themselves in power control the free flow of goods to their people. They start wars to stay in power they starve people to stay in power. They achieve power and stay in power by any means they can.
If that was true, then there would be no starvation in the most lawless areas of the world, like Somalia. But strangely enough, people are quite capable of starving no matter what kind of government there is, or even if there is no government at all.

It's all very well claiming that despots limit the flow of goods, but that ignores the fact that some people are too poor to buy the shit in the first place.


What the world needs is systems of government that LIMIT the despotic nature of "leaders." And here you will think I am crazy: That is exactly what George Bush is trying to do in Iraq. We were wrong to invade--but now that we are there Bush is trying to create a government, loaded with rules and regulations and piles of democracy that prevent a guy like Saddam from ever coming to power again. A far feched scheme, to be sure, but one based in good intention.And one that is a complete and utter failure. Iraq is far more unstable now than it was under Saddam. The current "government" has been installed by a foreign occupying power and doesn't have much authority beyond Baghdad anyway. It's much the same situation in Afghanistan.

What this has to do with the private ownership of the means of production is a mystery to me.


What the world needs more of is Parlamentary Democracy and less of "leaders", "Furhers", "First Secretaries," and anything similar.Indeed, but they need to be enacted by the populations of the country concerned, not delivered through the barrel of a gun by a foreign power.


The economic system is and will always be CapitalisticCitation needed.

[Bud Struggle]

Citation needed.

Read my sig line. Communism came, went and is gone. It had its time just like Fascism. If so many people hadn't been murdered by Communisnts I'd might have said it was worth a try.

Nobody's going to give it a second look now--not after the dismal failure of the first tries. But best of luck in your hopes. We all need to hope in something: religion, winning the lottery, the "revolution", becoming a rock star.:thumbup1:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Read my sig line. Communism came, went and is gone. It had its time just like Fascism. If so many people hadn't been murdered by Communisnts I'd might have said it was worth a try.

False dilemma. The choice isn't just between American-style capitalism and Soviet Socialism.


Nobody's going to give it a second look now--not after the dismal failure of the first tries. But best of luck in your hopes. We all need to hope in something: religion, winning the lottery, the "revolution", becoming a rock star.:thumbup1:

Has anyone ever told you that being a condescending prick does not endear yourself to people?

[Bud Struggle]

Has anyone ever told you that being a condescending prick does not endear yourself to people?

Have you noticed your sig line may be saying the same thing about you?

Seriously, have you ever been to a supermarket in the Soviet Union or a Eastern block country? Have you ever been to Shanghi or Bejing or Havanna? I have. There (was) is NO FOOD in any of them. Supermarket--big, roomy, no food. Have you ever spoken to people who have lived under Communism? One word for how they lived: fear.

I was in the SU right after the fall, and the people could care less that Communism had fallen. They were just happy that the KGB wasn't watching them (now it's back, under another name with Putin.) But they disliked the system.

On the other hand I always wished I had the balls every time I visited the SU to have bought a copy of Marx with me--and read it to my friends--just to see if it had any resonance in their lives. I doubt it. In Cuba, Fidel gave the running of the country over to his BROTHER. Is that freedom or does that seem something like freakin' Louis XIV would do? Does any of that make sense to you?

The People's Republic of China, the Soviet Union are EXACTLY what Communism looks like when put into practice. Maybe communism was tried in the past--I saw a sig line sombody had (I forget who) that said the Paris Commune was the only REAL communism. So how many days did it last and how many people in Paris at the time even KNEW it existed. A thousand people, a couple of days. Real communism is like a flower, it dies in a day. I can't see any way anyone could see Communism is the way of the future.

In any even--you are right, my previous post's comment was snarky a bit, and I do apologize.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have you noticed your sig line may be saying the same thing about you?

Oh I'm sorry, did I hit a sore spot?


Seriously, have you ever been to a supermarket in the Soviet Union or a Eastern block country? Have you ever been to Shanghi or Bejing or Havanna? I have. There (was) is NO FOOD in any of them. Supermarket--big, roomy, no food. Have you ever spoken to people who have lived under Communism? One word for how they lived: fear.

I was in the SU right after the fall, and the people could care less that Communism had fallen. They were just happy that the KGB wasn't watching them (now it's back, under another name with Putin.) But they disliked the system.

On the other hand I always wished I had the balls every time I visited the SU to have bought a copy of Marx with me--and read it to my friends--just to see if it had any resonance in their lives. I doubt it. In Cuba, Fidel gave the running of the country over to his BROTHER. Is that freedom or does that seem something like freakin' Louis XIV would do? Does any of that make sense to you?

The People's Republic of China, the Soviet Union are EXACTLY what Communism looks like when put into practice. I saw a sig line sombody had (I forget who) that said the Paris Commune was the only REAL communism. so how many days did it last and how many people in Paris at the time even KNEW it existed. I can't see any way anyone could see Communism is the way of the future.Once again you present the false dilemma of American Capitalism and Vanguardist socialism. "Communism" is not some monolithic ideology shared by the USSR and China, no more than "Capitalism" is a monolithic ideology - that's why I specified "American-style Capitalism" rather than simply "Capitalism".

I don't support American-style Capitalism or Soviet Socialism, which if you examine more closely actually turns out be state capitalism - the whole country functions as a business, rather than simply having businesses paying taxes to the government and what have you.

I want to abolish the price system, not to simply have a state-sponsored version.

[Zurdito]

Have you noticed your sig line may be saying the same thing about you?

Seriously, have you ever been to a supermarket in the Soviet Union or a Eastern block country? Have you ever been to Shanghi or Bejing or Havanna? I have. There (was) is NO FOOD in any of them. Supermarket--big, roomy, no food. Have you ever spoken to people who have lived under Communism? One word for how they lived: fear.

I was in the SU right after the fall, and the people could care less that Communism had fallen. They were just happy that the KGB wasn't watching them (now it's back, under another name with Putin.) But they disliked the system.

A good friend of mine went to Moscow in the 1970's and 1980's, and then back in the 1990's after the Yeltsin era. He compared the effects of market liberalisation to a nuclear holocaust. I know many rank and file Eastern Europeans who are nostalgic for the return of Stalinism. The reason many don't vote for it is because they don't think it would be possible. But the fact that the strong nostalgia exists shows you how shit life under capitalism there is, as many people even prefered a completely degenerated, bureaucratic version of socialism like Stalinism, which left them opressed by a bureaucratic state and under seige from the world's developed countries, to capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh I'm sorry, did I hit a sore spot?

Once again you present the false dilemma of American Capitalism and Vanguardist socialism. "Communism" is not some monolithic ideology shared by the USSR and China, no more than "Capitalism" is a monolithic ideology - that's why I specified "American-style Capitalism" rather than simply "Capitalism".

I don't support American-style Capitalism or Soviet Socialism, which if you examine more closely actually turns out be state capitalism - the whole country functions as a business, rather than simply having businesses paying taxes to the government and what have you.

I want to abolish the price system, not to simply have a state-sponsored version.

No sore spot just pointing out how a pot can call a kettle black.

Further: after 150 years, after millions of lives, after tries and tries again. Show me Communism. Show me where it works and people are happy and shelves are full.

All you say is, "this isn't Communism, that wasn't Communism, they didn't do this right, they didn't do that right, they missed this point, they got
bureaucratic, despotic (and with RevLef) melancholic."

Show me the beef, boy. After 150 year, show me a Communism that works.

BTW: I can show you a place where it worked for centuries and still works. :D

[Bud Struggle]

A good friend of mine went to Moscow in the 1970's and 1980's, and then back in the 1990's after the Yeltsin era. He compared the effects of market liberalisation to a nuclear holocaust. I know many rank and file Eastern Europeans who are nostalgic for the return of Stalinism. The reason many don't vote for it is because they don't think it would be possible. But the fact that the strong nostalgia exists shows you how shit life under capitalism there is, as many people even prefered a completely degenerated, bureaucratic version of socialism like Stalinism, which left them opressed by a bureaucratic state and under seige from the world's developed countries, to capitalism.

That's a valid point. But people raised in a certain way are often nostalgic for the "good old days." The people had to come around to a new way of thinking. I'm sure the first generation of Soviet Unioners were missing the Tsar a bit, too.

Here's the problem with Russia as I see it. The Tsar was authatarian, so were the Soviets and the moment democracy had a chance to take hold it was overthrown by the new Tsar--Putin. I am by far not pleased with what has happened to Russia. Personally, I think it's closer to a (mild) Fascist state than a Capitalist one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No sore spot just pointing out how a pot can call a kettle black.


Just because I say something a particular way doesn't make it any less true.


Further: after 150 years, after millions of lives, after tries and tries again. Show me Communism. Show me where it works and people are happy and shelves are full.

You're still charactising "communism", a broad swathe of ideologies with many variations, as some monolithic chimera called "Communism". I'm sorry, but politics does not work that way.

And in any case, how many lives were spent in the establishment of capitalist economies, and how many false starts were there?


All you say is, "this isn't Communism, that wasn't Communism, they didn't do this right, they didn't do that right, they missed this point, they got
bureaucratic, despotic (and with RevLef) melancholic."

Show me the beef, boy. After 150 year, show me a Communism that works.

How can I quantify the success of a type of society that hasn't even existed yet? How many stateless, classless, moneyless industrial civilisations can you name?

I thought so.

[Bud Struggle]

Just because I say something a particular way doesn't make it any less true.

Doesn't make you any less a prick either. It's offensive to some people. Just like it was offensive for me to say believing in Communism is like believing in fairy tales. I at least apologized. Not for my my beliefs--but for being unkind and offending.




You're still charactising "communism", a broad swathe of ideologies with many variations, as some monolithic chimera called "Communism". I'm sorry, but politics does not work that way.

You are confusing politics and economic.


And in any case, how many lives were spent in the establishment of capitalist economies, and how many false starts were there?

Probably lots, but unlike Communism where there were ALL false starts. Capitalism works pretty well all over the world. Communists died for "nothing" but at least Capitalist died for a real "cause."


How can I quantify the success of a type of society that hasn't even existed yet? How many stateless, classless, moneyless industrial civilisations can you name?

One. We call it "heaven". Christians believe in such things all the time. Welcome to the world of "faith.":laugh:


I thought so.

Me to. :)

[Sentinel]

Capitalism works pretty well all over the world.

I'm sure the starving children in Africa agree.


Communists died for "nothing" but at least Capitalist died for a real "cause."

Last I checked, capitalists weren't in the habit of dying for their own 'cause', that's what they have the working class for. :glare:

[Zurdito]

The Tsar was authatarian, so were the Soviets and the moment democracy had a chance to take hold it was overthrown by the new Tsar--Putin. I am by far not pleased with what has happened to Russia. Personally, I think it's closer to a (mild) Fascist state than a Capitalist one.

You won't find many westerners who visited Soviet Russia in the 70's or even 80's who will tell you that it was better in the mid-1990's. The reason Putin took power with his fascistic movement (I don't think he is fascist, he is what I would class as a Bonaparte, but his movement does have linsk to fascist groups and bears many resemblances to fascism) is because free-market liberalisation failed: it destroyed people's living standards, eventually self-desctructing with the devaluation in 1998. But you are right on one "cultural" factor: unlike smaller, less powerful countries, the Russians do not have a history of letting foreign governments impose an agenda on them. Ask Napoleon. Ask Hitler. ask the IMF economic planners in Washington.

If Washington Consensus neo-liberalism wanted to survive in Russia of all places, it needed to back up the rights it granted on paper with real improvements in living standards. Even Stalinism most of the time provided that, whilst at the same time defeating the last remnants of revolutionary fervour and working class independence. Under Yeltsin and his IMF backers however, the country actually regressed hugely.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm sure the starving children in Africa agree. See, I blame that on Communism. :rolleyes: Really, as I said earlier--it's politics not economic that leads to starvation. I don't want people starving--but we have hundreds of "third world war lords" that need to be disposed of. I don't know the chances of do it--but from the way America tried to take care of Saddam--it isn' that easy.

But to blame Capitalism, doesn't make any sense. Do you think those despots would be any different wih Communism?




Last I checked, capitalists weren't in the habit of dying for their own 'cause', that's what they have the working class for. :glare:

Like the "collective farms", the Russian famine of 1921, the Great Purge, the Holodomodor of the Ukrainians, and on and on. At least Capitalists don't pretend that "we are all equal."

[Zurdito]

Like the "collective farms", the Russian famine of 1921, the Great Purge, the Holodomodor of the Ukrainians, and on and on. At least Capitalists don't pretend that "we are all equal."

Actually the US constitution says that all men are created equal.

[Bud Struggle]

You won't find many westerners who visited Soviet Russia in the 70's or even 80's who will tell you that it was better in the mid-1990's. The reason Putin took power with his fascistic movement (I don't think he is fascist, he is what I would class as a Bonaparte, but his movement does have linsk to fascist groups and bears many resemblances to fascism) is because free-market liberalisation failed: it destroyed people's living standards, eventually self-desctructing with the devaluation in 1998. But you are right on one "cultural" factor: unlike smaller, less powerful countries, the Russians do not have a history of letting foreign governments impose an agenda on them. Ask Napoleon. Ask Hitler. ask the IMF economic planners in Washington.

If Washington Consensus neo-liberalism wanted to survive in Russia of all places, it needed to back up the rights it granted on paper with real improvements in living standards. Even Stalinism most of the time provided that, whilst at the same time defeating the last remnants of revolutionary fervour and working class independence. Under Yeltsin and his IMF backers however, the country actually regressed hugely.

I was a huge step to take such a large country from Communism to Capitalism in a short period of time and an ex-KGB official was the last person I would pick to do it.

They need more time and more democracy. I'm guardedly hopeful that Russia will emerge from all this kaos OK.

[Bud Struggle]

Actually the US constitution says that all men are created equal.

We are CREATED equal. What you do with your life after that is your business. :)

[Zurdito]

We are CREATED equal. What you do with your life after that is your business. :)

No that's not how I interpret the quote. Obviously the Founding Fathers did not believe that everyone was born into equal stuations, they were not that stupid. Rather, the slave-owning scum who wrote the constitution were hypocritically stating that all people are of equal worth. They had to spin this ideology, because their legitimacy was based on making progress from monarchistic European colonialism. Therefore, the US constitution is as hypocritical as anything you would find in Stalinist Russia.

[Bud Struggle]

No that's not how I interpret the quote. Obviously the Founding Fathers did not believe that everyone was born into equal stuations, they were not that stupid. Rather, the slave-owning scum who wrote the constitution were hypocritically stating that all people are of equal worth. They had to spin this ideology, because their legitimacy was based on making progress from monarchistic European colonialism. Therefore, the US constitution is as hypocritical as anything you would find in Stalinist Russia.

Ok. Yesterday's news. Anway the founding fathers didn't takes slaves of being equal worth. Now we understand their words better and a Black guy might be the Prdesident of the United States. The Stalinists DID take everyone as being of equal worth and they STILL murdered 20 million EQUAL comrads.

Anway the Soviet Union is history, long gone and buried AND NEVER COMING BACK. America is still here and will be for a long time to come.

[You might want to change the title of this thread to "TomK contra Mundum". ]

[Sentinel]

Really, as I said earlier--it's politics not economic that leads to starvation.

Politics today is mainly a means to install and maintain economic systems. Any claims on the contrary are just plain absurd. :rolleyes:

For example, most of the bandit regimes in the third world are backed by the imperialists in the first world politically and militarily --they are in place because the first world capitalist economic system needs them there in order to function.


But to blame Capitalism, doesn't make any sense. Do you think those despots would be any different wih Communism?


Like the "collective farms", the Russian famine of 1921, the Great Purge, the Holodomodor of the Ukrainians, and on and on. At least Capitalists don't pretend that "we are all equal."

Tom, I really like you.

You are one of the best OI members in a long while. But you're dissapointing me now, we've already been over this. Listen; I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and do not support the former Soviet union, nor do I advocate any kind of centrally governed society. Just like NoXion, I consider the USSR to have been just another type of capitalism.

Therefore I'd appreciate if you'd quit assuming I do, and researched on anarcho-syndicalism, my actual position. The system I advocate is one based on the principles of federalism and direct democracy, and isthe diametrical opposite of the one that was in place in the so called socialist bloc.

This type of system was established in parts of Spain and worked rather well considering the circumstances (the ongoing fascist aggression), but was defeated militarily by the fascists.

The same kind of thing happened to the Paris Commune as well. You really can't put all communists in one box in the way you are doing if we are to take you seriously at all.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and do not support the former Soviet union, nor do I advocate any kind of centrally governed society.

With all due respect Sentinal, I'm a little new here and I don't know NoXion from a hole in the head. (And it's not like he SAID "anarcho-syndicalist" on his avatar!) I have met you though, and I certainly wouldn't go through the "Soviet Union" thing with you. I have actually met other people that think Stalin is just freakin' fine. I am trying to follow the ideas presented here--not just the ideologies. I am sorry if I jumped on the wrong guy for the wrong reason.

If by any chance you want to know how I feel, get involved in a Catholic Theology website and try to understand the currents and sub-currents involved in that miasma of subterfuge and sublayered meaning. Then you will know where I am coming from. You are invited! :D

This discussion started as a backwater in the religion thread, I never meant it to be brought to the forefront.

At this point I will withdraw from this discussion; with my apologies to all involved.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

TomK, for your future reference, here is a brief summary of my socio-political position:


I think the best thing you could currently describe me as would an anarcho-transhumanist, although I have no affiliation with any such groups. I find Technocracy highly interesting but I feel I do not know enough to fully commit to it as part of my personal ideology.

My vision for the future is for humanity to spread out into the universe, diversifying and occupying as many niches as possible, to advance technology as far as we can to the best of our abilities, and to probe the deepest secrets of the universe and turn them to our use. To that end we must eliminate scarcity-based economies (including capitalism), providing the basis for a decent quality of life for every human (or Transhuman). We must also eliminate religion and superstition, as an addition to being the basis for a multitude of cruelties and absurdities, it pathologically warps our view of the universe, therefore stunting our progress.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, for your future reference, here is a brief summary of my socio-political position:

Noted! It was charming chatting with you. :)

My political beliefs are:

I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because, uh,
some... people out there in out nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe
that our education like such as South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere
like, such as and ... I believe that they should, our education over here in
the US should help the US, er, should help South Africa and should help the
Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up a future for
our children. :D

[Robespierre2.0]

a

[Bud Struggle]

a

Double damn it. You had a good post there, Mantis. :(

[Robespierre2.0]

Hmm, well, I was sort of in an indignant mood when I first posted, so I was afraid I might have come across as rude, but I guess I'll post it again.

Marxism-Leninism, or 'Stalinism' as it is often referred to, is the correct theoretical line that should be taken by socialists. These anarchists and trots are taking an incredibly cowardly way out of arguing with you by trying to disown anything and everything ever labeled 'socialist'.

Communist ideology is based on the principles of dialectal materialism, and therefore, we will attempt to view every socialist experiment in its' historical context, and try to judge them as objectively as possible. The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, DPRK- they were all right in repressing bourgeois counterrevolutionaries and dissenters; such is the nature of class struggle. In fact, I would say Stalin didn't go far enough in weeding out bourgeois influence, given how Kruschev was able to come to power and dismantle socialism. You see, under Stalin, the Soviet Union, not only became an industrialized nation, but experienced massive increases in literacy, life expectancy, and the social status of women. To quote Paul Robeson, "from what I have already seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, I can only say that anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot!"

The United States, founded by a bunch of white slave-owners, is an anachronism- A bloody, imperialist anachronism that has oppressed millions ever since its inception. Now, of course, the common American doesn't live in the same squalor and poverty they did a century ago, but that doesn't mean that that sort of brutal exploitation doesn't occur anymore. As an imperialist power, we have prospered enough (from raping and plundering the undeveloped world) to pay our workers more, as a sort of bribe, and set up a whole bread-and-circus of pop culture and professional sports. Though we still are exploited, and the majority of wealth in this country is possessed by a rich minority, the average American is kept in enough of a stupor by opiates like religion and television to not realize how bad they are being fucked on a daily basis. The 19th century squalor and poverty has not gone away though- it's just out of our sight to prevent any sort of outrage. Those Nike tennis shoes you're wearing are the product of child laborers in Taiwan and Nicaragua. THAT is 'Capitalist prosperity' for you.

However, this cannot go on for too much longer. American imperialism is in decline. Our productive forces are developing at incredible rate, putting more and more people out of work and driving wages down. The Iraq war is weighing heavily on the American economy. Leftist regimes are on the rise in South America. Yes, right now, things still do look pretty gloomy, but communism is HISTORICALLY INEVITABLE.

[Random Precision]

Like the "collective farms"

They had great success in eliminating the gap between agricultural and industrial production as well as supporting the latter to a great extent. They helped raise the living standards of the people, despite the brutality of the collectivization process.


the Russian famine of 1921

This cannot be attributed to the Bolsheviks. It is directly attributable to Russia's itinerant droughts, plus the disruption of agriculture than began in World War I under the Tsar and was continued by the Civil War, which was pursued by the opponents of Soviet power, including 12 armies of imperialist powers such as the United States. Although, the bourgeois press, like you today, wasted no time in blaming everything on the Bolsheviks, right next to articles about how Lenin was having Trotsky assassinated and Trotsky was throwing Lenin in jail.


the Great Purge

Which was less malevolent and affected fewer people than anti-communist historians like Conquest would claim. Although it did have the effect of destroying nearly all the prominent old revolutionaries and many not so prominent ones, it was much more an organic reaction rising out of the Soviet bureaucracy's fear resulting from collectivization and industrialization. It is true that Stalin exploited to the greatest extent, and where he could directed this reaction, but you cannot attribute either his counterrevolutionary opportunism or the organic reaction of the bureaucracy to the idea or movement of communism in general.


the Holodomodor of the Ukrainians

This is a myth created by the Nazis in World War II and propagated by Ukrainian nationalists today. It is true that there was a famine in 1932-1933, however it occurred all across the southeastern USSR and was more the result of incompetence on the part of government bureaucracy during collectivization than a willful act of malice, or anything approaching genocide.

[careyprice31]

Like Sentenal, I really like Tomk.

The man is totally charming and really friendly. I like him.

Even though I am a marxist and believe in revolution, and he isnt.

Tomk, think you could charm the rattles off a rattler? :D

[Jazzratt]

Marxism-Leninism, or 'Stalinism' as it is often referred to, is the correct theoretical line that should be taken by socialists.

THis is innacurate, no one refers to Marxism as "Stalinism", they refer to Marxism-Leninism as Stalinism. You can't deny that Lenin's additions to Marxist theory changed it enough that the two terms are not interchangeable as you suggest.


These anarchists and trots are taking an incredibly cowardly way out of arguing with you by trying to disown anything and everything ever labeled 'socialist'.

Most of us don't disown it entirely, just deny that it was communist and, in a lot of cases, anything to do with communism. This is nothing to do with "cowardice" or "opportunism" but because the results of these socialist states bore nor resemblance to the communism advanced by our various theories.


Communist ideology is based on the principles of dialectal materialism,

Liar, liar pants on fire.


and therefore, we will attempt to view every socialist experiment in its' historical context, and try to judge them as objectively as possible.

And so we do, it's just that even by objective standards they're not as fucking grand as your lot tries to imply.


The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, DPRK- they were all right in repressing bourgeois counterrevolutionaries and dissenters; such is the nature of class struggle.

Yeah, but they also defined worker opposition to their regimes as bourgeois. The best way to think of it is as focusing on whether it was counter to their revolution or whether it was bourgeois.


In fact, I would say Stalin didn't go far enough in weeding out bourgeois influence, given how Kruschev was able to come to power and dismantle socialism.

You're joking. If you believe that history works by having one great man able to make or break communism, the result of mass struggle, this isn't a historically materialist position.


You see, under Stalin, the Soviet Union, not only became an industrialized nation, but experienced massive increases in literacy, life expectancy, and the social status of women.

That isn't what socialism is though. Sure industry is progressive, education is progressive and feminism is progressive but that doesn't mean these things make a socialist state.


To quote Paul Robeson, "from what I have already seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, I can only say that anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot!"

The Soviet Union was already stagnating under the weight of its own bloated bureaucracy having crushed both legitimate criticism and bourgeois dissent. I would hope that a future revolution would be able to differentiate, but given that there are people such as yourself who can't even do that with hindsight my hope dims.


The United States, founded by a bunch of white slave-owners, is an anachronism- A bloody, imperialist anachronism that has oppressed millions ever since its inception. Now, of course, the common American doesn't live in the same squalor and poverty they did a century ago, but that doesn't mean that that sort of brutal exploitation doesn't occur anymore. As an imperialist power, we have prospered enough (from raping and plundering the undeveloped world) to pay our workers more, as a sort of bribe, and set up a whole bread-and-circus of pop culture and professional sports. Though we still are exploited, and the majority of wealth in this country is possessed by a rich minority, the average American is kept in enough of a stupor by opiates like religion and television to not realize how bad they are being fucked on a daily basis. The 19th century squalor and poverty has not gone away though- it's just out of our sight to prevent any sort of outrage. Those Nike tennis shoes you're wearing are the product of child laborers in Taiwan and Nicaragua. THAT is 'Capitalist prosperity' for you.


I can agree with this.
However, this cannot go on for too much longer. American imperialism is in decline. Our productive forces are developing at incredible rate, putting more and more people out of work and driving wages down. The Iraq war is weighing heavily on the American economy. Leftist regimes are on the rise in South America. Yes, right now, things still do look pretty gloomy, but communism is HISTORICALLY INEVITABLE.[/quote]

[Jazzratt]

TomK - I know it can be confusing for OIers (and even leftists) on this board to understand the many factions. You can tell a bit about someone's political opinion, however, by seeing what usergroups they belong to (of course this only applies to some members). Most groups have an FAQ which I think you can view here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=groups). Hope that helps :)

[Dean]

Tom, you seem to misunderstand a lot of what communist, anarchist and socialsit ideologies mean. You can talk abotu viability all you want, but if the only viable world was one in which we all lived in our own alienated, drugged worlds I think it would be worth fighting for something better, regardless.

All these ideologies have some basic, common features: firstly, we believe in human dignity - human beings should be autonomous, and they should be able to decide their own futures. This is a fairly common idea, but there is one difference which puts us apart. That is, that we recognize that economic conditions dictate, form and modify our ability to make decisiosn which ultimately control our autonomy. Many people, particularly marxists, take the economic aspect further into theoretical arguments based on social chang, but the basic factors which make us leftists remain consistant. We believe in freedom, and however murky the argument gets when we look at the economic issues which affect our ability to be free, we do not avoid it as an issue of freedom.

However different our rhetoric appears, and even when peopel deny that these things compel them, it is rarely otherwise. People don't decide that marxist is rational just because of scientific arguments - they decide it because they care, and even when they can't articulate the issues of economic freedom very well, they know that something is wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

Like Sentenal, I really like Tomk.

The man is totally charming and really friendly. I like him.

Even though I am a marxist and believe in revolution, and he isnt.

Tomk, think you could charm the rattles off a rattler? :D

And you, Little Miss Svetlana are ever so sweet. :blushing:

This is a good example of the guy I am:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg6bZSM48vU

:lol::lol::lol:

[Bud Struggle]

TomK - I know it can be confusing for OIers (and even leftists) on this board to understand the many factions. You can tell a bit about someone's political opinion, however, by seeing what usergroups they belong to (of course this only applies to some members). Most groups have an FAQ which I think you can view here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=groups). Hope that helps :)

Thank you very much. Jazzrat, you are a pretty decent guy, for a Commie, of course. :D Of course here's a lot of different typesw pf Comminists that fall in between these groups, too. I'm learning little by little.

[Bud Struggle]

Tom, you seem to misunderstand a lot of what communist, anarchist and socialsit ideologies mean. You can talk abotu viability all you want, but if the only viable world was one in which we all lived in our own alienated, drugged worlds I think it would be worth fighting for something better, regardless.

All these ideologies have some basic, common features: firstly, we believe in human dignity - human beings should be autonomous, and they should be able to decide their own futures. This is a fairly common idea, but there is one difference which puts us apart. That is, that we recognize that economic conditions dictate, form and modify our ability to make decisiosn which ultimately control our autonomy. Many people, particularly marxists, take the economic aspect further into theoretical arguments based on social chang, but the basic factors which make us leftists remain consistant. We believe in freedom, and however murky the argument gets when we look at the economic issues which affect our ability to be free, we do not avoid it as an issue of freedom.

However different our rhetoric appears, and even when peopel deny that these things compel them, it is rarely otherwise. People don't decide that marxist is rational just because of scientific arguments - they decide it because they care, and even when they can't articulate the issues of economic freedom very well, they know that something is wrong.

Oddly, with a few minor changes you could take that EXACT statement and apply it to Catholics. Before you all shreak away in horror, that's exactly what the Church is supposed to be not of course what it really is most of the time. But you can see how a good message could get distorted, the same thing happened to Communism.

For what it's worth, until I came here (and forgive me--I was indeed mistaken) I looked at Communists as Fascists of the Left. Same agenda (world domination) just different means. "Communism" for me was the Communism of my youth--Kruschev banging his shoe at the United Nations saying "we will bury you." Not particularly pleasent.

Anway, so I do share your ends--but not your means really. And I agree something is wrong. But I think there it WAY too high a emphisis on economics--I could understand that when the working class was poor, but now--they are just as you said, drug addled and disinfranchised. I think there is way TOO MUCH emphisis on money in this world. Everyone wants to be rich--and no one wants to work for it. That's what I see as the real problem.

Also, one needs an active inner life that trancends the temporal and the mundane, that's easily said, but difficult to achieve. What I find VERY interesting about this site is that I see that lots of people here have made that leap, and I can't exactly figure out the how and why people here are able to do that. It's interesting and more than slightly confusing. I've always thought that the least human people I've encountered where humanists, you folks here are muchly changing my mind about that.

It's even getting to the point that when I visualize the faces of posters on this site I'm starting to see an ever so slight break in the middle of some of your every so bushy Communist unibrows. :D

[Dean]

Oddly, with a few minor changes you could take that EXACT statement and apply it to Catholics. Before you all shreak away in horror, that's exactly what the Church is supposed to be not of course what it really is most of the time. But you can see how a good message could get distorted, the same thing happened to Communism.
I don't dislike religion so much; in fact, much of my influences came from religious thinkers (though most of them became atheists). Catholicism, and christianity in general, was indeed a very progressive force at one time. The first Christian sects were believed to be communist by many theologists.


For what it's worth, until I came here (and forgive me--I was indeed mistaken) I looked at Communists as Fascists of the Left. Same agenda (world domination) just different means. "Communism" for me was the Communism of my youth--Kruschev banging his shoe at the United Nations saying "we will bury you." Not particularly pleasent.

Anway, so I do share your ends--but not your means really. And I agree something is wrong. But I think there it WAY too high a emphisis on economics--I could understand that when the working class was poor, but now--they are just as you said, drug addled and disinfranchised. I think there is way TOO MUCH emphisis on money in this world. Everyone wants to be rich--and no one wants to work for it. That's what I see as the real problem.
I don't think you understand my meaning. We live in a society which encourages dullness and unreal, artifically satisfying pastimes - drugs, in a very broad sense. As for the economic argument - sometimes the emphasis is way too extensive. But if you look at and buy into the concept of "free market" economic "freedom," virtually all of our society should be privatized. The focus on economics as a righteous ruler is held in dangerously high esteem, and people often don't notice it. Economics have a lot to do with all parts of society, you can't divorce economics from the reality of society.


Also, one needs an active inner life that trancends the temporal and the mundane, that's easily said, but difficult to achieve. What I find VERY interesting about this site is that I see that lots of people here have made that leap, and I can't exactly figure out the how and why people here are able to do that. It's interesting and more than slightly confusing.
There is a certain spiritualism common to many marxists and far-leftists. It usually involves intense realism, critical analysis of society and media, focus on the human being and belief in a better future.


I've always thought that the least human people I've encountered where humanists, you folks here are muchly changing my mind about that.
I don't quite understand this - are you sayign that you thought inhuman people were humanists? If so, what do you mean by that?


It's even getting to the point that when I visualize the faces of posters on this site I'm starting to see an ever so slight break in the middle of some of your every so bushy Communist unibrows. :D
This statement also confuses me. What do you mean?

[KC]

Anway, so I do share your ends--but not your means really. And I agree something is wrong. But I think there it WAY too high a emphisis on economics--I could understand that when the working class was poor, but now--they are just as you said, drug addled and disinfranchised. I think there is way TOO MUCH emphisis on money in this world. Everyone wants to be rich--and no one wants to work for it. That's what I see as the real problem.

Society is based on economics - on the production and distribution of resources. Politics and political systems are (incrediblysimply put) a means of controlling the production and distribution of resources. Politics are based in economics, and that is why we always discuss the economic infrastructure before referring to the political superstructure.

As the old saying goes, money is power.

[careyprice31]

And you, Little Miss Svetlana are ever so sweet. :blushing:

This is a good example of the guy I am:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg6bZSM48vU

:lol::lol::lol:


Awwww. :)

how cute.

thanks for the compliment.

[Awful Reality]

My ownership of a factory only effects you if you choose to work for me. Otherwise we are not connected in the slightest. You are always free to work for me, work for someone else, work for yourself or start your own company and own you own means of production. You have quite the laundry list of choices on how to manage you life, as do I. A myriad of choices is the best possible system.

What I do with my time, treasure and talent should have no affect on what you do with your life unless you choose to work for me.

Your choice.

Only often, the proletariat have no choice but to work for you due to socio-economic conditions. Most anti-communists throw around this idea of "choice"- but it's really just a dream... do you seriously think anybody wants to work in Wal-Mart?

[pusher robot]

do you seriously think anybody wants to work in Wal-Mart?

Yes, of course they do, or they would simply quit. Nobody is compelling them to work there. Now, your response will be that if they quit, they'll have to struggle to survive or take other, even worse jobs. This is true. But they do still have that option!

You (and many other leftists) seem to take a queer position that where one choice is so manifestly better than all the alternatives, then choice no longer exists, that somehow the dominance of one option removes all free agency in the selection of that option. It doesn't, though - it just makes it a relatively easy decision.

Consider: in certain regions, it gets very cold in the winter, cold enough that you will be very uncomfortable and possibly in danger if you don't wear a coat outside. So almost everybody wears a coat. Does that mean they have no choice whether or not to put on a coat? Is this an example of coat slavery? Would it make no difference to personal freedom if everybody was compelled to wear coats, if wearing a coat was no longer a personal choice but a duty?

[Awful Reality]

Yes, of course they do, or they would simply quit. Nobody is compelling them to work there. Now, your response will be that if they quit, they'll have to struggle to survive or take other, even worse jobs. This is true. But they do still have that option!

Of course they have that option- but why would they take it? It would make a horrible situation worse.

[Dean]

And you, Little Miss Svetlana are ever so sweet. :blushing:

This is a good example of the guy I am:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg6bZSM48vU

:lol::lol::lol:

Oh, Bruce. How disillusioned this clip has made me :(

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Show me the beef, boy. After 150 year, show me a Communism that works.



This was from the start of the thread, but hey I've been offline for a few days performing in the theatre don't cha know? :cool:

Anyway Tom, what about the paris commune? That worked just fine until the french army slaughtered them. There were struggles between the pre-leninists who wanted a small elite running the show (vanguard) and republicans and anarchists and trade unionists and all the rest of our big happy bundle on the left, but ultimately it worked, and bloody well.

-Alex

[Bud Struggle]

I don't dislike religion so much; in fact, much of my influences came from religious thinkers (though most of them became atheists). Catholicism, and christianity in general, was indeed a very progressive force at one time. The first Christian sects were believed to be communist by many theologists. True, and even now the only real "workable" communism that I've seen is the Catholic orders of monks who own everything on commin--even their clothes. It is a lovely life in a way.



I don't think you understand my meaning. We live in a society which encourages dullness and unreal, artifically satisfying pastimes - drugs, in a very broad sense. As for the economic argument - sometimes the emphasis is way too extensive. But if you look at and buy into the concept of "free market" economic "freedom," virtually all of our society should be privatized. The focus on economics as a righteous ruler is held in dangerously high esteem, and people often don't notice it. Economics have a lot to do with all parts of society, you can't divorce economics from the reality of society.

We live in a society that allows you to be as dull and brain damaged or vibrant andcreative as you wish. You can be poor or rich, fat of skinny, bored or fantasticly engaged. Your choice--what's wrong with that. One of the reason I'm here (or first came here) was to find new and better ways to engage my employees in an interesting life. What can I offer them to give them more internal fufillment? And I don't do that as just an "employer" but as a brother that has a lot of fufillment in his life and wants to pass it on. Culturely, spiritually and economicly. The joys of life are multiplied if they are shared. And the sorrows of life are diminshed if they are shared.



There is a certain spiritualism common to many marxists and far-leftists. It usually involves intense realism, critical analysis of society and media, focus on the human being and belief in a better future.

I have no disagreement there.



I don't quite understand this - are you sayign that you thought inhuman people were humanists? If so, what do you mean by that?

Oblque reference to all those "building a better world" folks that caused so much trouble in Europe during the last century.



This statement also confuses me. What do you mean?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40508000/jpg/_40508887_brezhnev_ap_238.jpg
:lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Society is based on economics - on the production and distribution of resources. Politics and political systems are (incrediblysimply put) a means of controlling the production and distribution of resources. Politics are based in economics, and that is why we always discuss the economic infrastructure before referring to the political superstructure.

As the old saying goes, money is power.

Here we disagree.

There are three things that motovate people:

1. Sex
2. Money
3. Power

They interplay. But there are, oh, lets say a hundred million more web sites about sex than there are about Communism. It's a basic, first want. When your young and horney (and sometimes old [well "older"] and horney, too,) it's a driving force in life. Sex in itself isn't an end in itself, BUT it sells well and looks good in the movies, etc. The end of sex is--ready for this--a happy marriage with a woman you've loved more every day, who's wishes and happinesses and sorrows and body you've explored and questioned and lost and refound a million times. It's watching children grow and explore and question and fail and succeed. None of that translates well only cd's and movies. It's living with a woman and your children as they used to say: "in abiding faith." That's sex in it's fufilment.

And money. It's nothing in itself. As a guy that's pretty good at making it I really don't think too much of it myself. When I was younger it was a way of keeping score. I competed with other guys like me. We didn't REALLY care about having it. It's a game to those who know how to make it. And honestly--making money is a knack. It's nice to have, sure, but all that stuff about it not bring happiness it totally true. My father worked in a factury and never made any money and was the happiest guy in the world. He had what he wanted--a happy and loving family. Greed, that is wanting money for itself, is hole in the heart--nothing more. Money gives nothing to happiness. Really. An economicly "just" society will have just as many unhappy and unfufilled people as an economicly just one.

Lastly, Power. I don't quite know why people want it. Money MAY be a stepingstone to power--but just one OF MANY means to that end. There are just people in this world that desire it. Kind of like people who what money, but much more evil. The BEAT thing about a government like America's is that it inhibits power by making lots of rules and laws that impede what a powerful man could do. For what it's worth--that's the best thing about about government. It stops people who have a lust for power from ever gaining a firm hold on it. A powerful leader arisese from anarchy. Salin did, Hitler did, Napoleon did. Caesar did. All those freaking' petty dictators in the third world did. A good government with solid rules and regulations stops dictators in their tracks every time.

Well, I am goin on and on--aren't I? :D

[Bud Struggle]

Only often, the proletariat have no choice but to work for you due to socio-economic conditions. Most anti-communists throw around this idea of "choice"- but it's really just a dream... do you seriously think anybody wants to work in Wal-Mart?

People ALWAYS choose their lives. They just don't always make the choice in one step. For a person to get a job in Wal-Mart they make a hundred decisions, a thousand decisions to get them there. They don't study for that test, they don't finish high school, they get married to the wrong guy or get into drugs, or don't care when thhey are being taught math or science or English. Everyone of those people at Wal-Mart decided in their own way NOT to be a doctor or a businessman or a teacher.

They made their decisions and I respect that. Now, all I ask is that they respect the decisions I've made in my life.

[Bud Struggle]

:thumbup1:
This was from the start of the thread, but hey I've been offline for a few days performing in the theatre don't cha know? :cool:

Anyway Tom, what about the paris commune? That worked just fine until the french army slaughtered them. There were struggles between the pre-leninists who wanted a small elite running the show (vanguard) and republicans and anarchists and trade unionists and all the rest of our big happy bundle on the left, but ultimately it worked, and bloody well.

-Alex

Don't know, Alex. Thanks for the heads up and I'll look over that (as I am the Second Spanish Republic. And Fromm--Just read his Marx Concept of Man.) I'll get back.:thumbup1:

As for the "theatre" Great work, great fun, great friends. Enjoy!

[Dean]

[QUOTE=TomK;1103314]True, and even now the only real "workable" communism that I've seen is the Catholic orders of monks who own everything on commin--even their clothes. It is a lovely life in a way.
Then you haven't lived amongst the lower classes in other nations enough. There is a reason why many South American and Middle Eastern and Indochine cultures in particular are lauded as very hospitable, and the families often share everything and live under the same roof. Many immigrants still live that way when they move to the U.S., but many change due to the social and economic climate, unfortunately. This kind of spontaneous, rigorous and compassionate sharing of responsibilities is the closest form of communism I have ever seen in the present day - and it is completely anarchistic!





We live in a society that allows you to be as dull and brain damaged or vibrant andcreative as you wish. You can be poor or rich, fat of skinny, bored or fantasticly engaged. Your choice--what's wrong with that.
Not really. Human beings are subjects of their surroundings. If I live in a culture which tells me to believe in God for my entire childhood, it is my unconscious self, rather than my autonomous, conscious thoughts that compel such beliefs. When society encourages actions which dull creativity, analytical thinking and self-actuation, it doesn't just "give you a chioce." It appeals to inner drives, rather than objective reason, and by doing so circumvents our own abiltiy to rationally make decisions on what can and should compel our primary, conscious thought processes and actions. Freedom IS a psychological issue, and for this very reason it becomes clear why, even when so many people appeared to willingly submit to monsters like Stalin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Reagan, Kissinger, Bush, Olmert, they can see the contradictions and overlook them. They have trained themselves or been trained to categorically oppose things which would destabilize their perception of the world, a dangerous kind of conservatism.


One of the reason I'm here (or first came here) was to find new and better ways to engage my employees in an interesting life. What can I offer them to give them more internal fufillment? And I don't do that as just an "employer" but as a brother that has a lot of fufillment in his life and wants to pass it on. Culturely, spiritually and economicly.
That is good. Since I doubt you will relenquish control to a worker's collective, I would start by offering them more control over the management, perhaps through meetings in which workers do have some degree of power. It is shown that workers who feel that they control how they do their job and are less managed are not just happier, but more productive.


Six in the morning don’t want to wake
Sun laying low and the world sleeping late
Hate like the river runs heavy and deep
Oh I wish that they’d sack me and leave me to sleep

Five days from seven the week’s hardly mine
The alarm clock’s gone over to enemy lines
Waste my time working for cowards and creeps
Oh I wish that they’d sack me and leave me to sleep

Rain strikes the window heralds the day
Rain won’t you wash these eight hours away?
Rain feeds the river runs heavy and deep
Oh I wish that they’d sack me and leave me to sleep

Birds on the windowsill sing in the dawn
By the time that I’m home all this day will be gone
Spend my life sowing what others will reap
Oh I wish that they’d sack me and leave me to sleep

Rain strikes the window heralds the day
Rain won’t you wash these eight hours away?
Rain feeds the river runs heavy and deep
Oh I wish that they’d sack me and leave me to sleep.


The joys of life are multiplied if they are shared. And the sorrows of life are diminshed if they are shared.
An old swedish proverb I have always loved! "Shared Joy is double joy; shared sorrow is half sorrow."

[Demogorgon]

Yes, of course they do, or they would simply quit. Nobody is compelling them to work there. Now, your response will be that if they quit, they'll have to struggle to survive or take other, even worse jobs. This is true. But they do still have that option!

You (and many other leftists) seem to take a queer position that where one choice is so manifestly better than all the alternatives, then choice no longer exists, that somehow the dominance of one option removes all free agency in the selection of that option. It doesn't, though - it just makes it a relatively easy decision.

Consider: in certain regions, it gets very cold in the winter, cold enough that you will be very uncomfortable and possibly in danger if you don't wear a coat outside. So almost everybody wears a coat. Does that mean they have no choice whether or not to put on a coat? Is this an example of coat slavery? Would it make no difference to personal freedom if everybody was compelled to wear coats, if wearing a coat was no longer a personal choice but a duty?
Do you want to pay all the taxes you are required to pay to the government?

[Dimentio]

As for the dilemma between a central-style command economy and an unregulated market economy, energy accounting (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=137) offers an interesting option.