What Am I?

[CXR]

Hey guys:

I'm not here to get persuaded to be a communist or anything, I'm just kindly asking for you to help me figure out what I am.

These are basically my beliefs-

I think that the majority of the public is stupid or ignorant and should not be allowed to make their own decisions.

I believe the majority of the public will fight for the right to make their stupid choices making the above situation nearly impossible

I believe that energy, healthcare, military, and law enforcement should be free and controlled by the government.

I do not believe in total freedom of speech (Censured lightly. Only to prevent rioting and other implications.)

So, what am I? Also, I believe that both capitalism and equal distribution of wealth both have their benefits, so I am undecided. If I'm a capitalist, what am I? If I support equal wealth, what am I?

I originally thought that a totalitarian oligarchy would work the best, but now I'm confused as hell. Thanks, I know a lot of my idealisms differ from yours.

[Svante]

i dont beleive the majority of people are stupide o r ignorant. i n Canada energy,healthcare,law enforcment,military are controled b y gouvernement. Stephen Harper are a tory. perhaps you are a tory.

[CXR]

Well, I live in America, where everyone is stupid.

Perhaps I'm applying my knowledge of America wrongly to the world, but Europe , SA, Africa and Asia most likely have their idiots as well.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Have you ever researched the ideological basis for fascism? Communism is based on wide scale activism by the "common person," so I don't think it fits your current beliefs at all.

[CXR]

Have you ever researched the ideological basis for fascism? Communism is based on wide scale activism by the "common person," so I don't think it fits your current beliefs at all.

But fascism involves extreme nationalism, militarism and/or racism among other things, which I don't possess.

I think theoretically a communist society would work the best but I don't trust people.


Communism is based on wide scale activism by the "common person," so I don't think it fits your current beliefs at all.

Isn't that the basis for democracy (rule by people/majority)?


EDIT- Perhaps this "stupid" public could be educated by a communistic society? In which case I guess communism would fit better, but not perfectly. Perhaps it's time to eliminate some of my ignorance.

Now, I've read the FAQs, but I have trouble figuring out everything. In a communist society, is everyone allowed an amount of currency to purchase things pertinent to their interest, like extra food or bicycles, computers, et cetera? Is it optional?

[Faux Real]

I think that the majority of the public is stupid or ignorant and should not be allowed to make their own decisions. In that case you should have no say in their nor your decisions.

[CXR]

In that case you should have no say in their nor your decisions.

So you're saying I'm ignorant?

[Faux Real]

So you're saying I'm ignorant?
There's no doubt you're in "the majority". If they are so are you. I don't believe they are, though.

[Dros]

You sound like some sort of fascist to me.

[gla22]

No he sounds like a Stalinist.

[Dros]

No he sounds like a Stalinist.

Yeah. Except not at all.

[CXR]

There's no doubt you're in "the majority". If they are so are you. I don't believe they are, though.

So you're saying I'm in the majority (the ignorant and stupid) but the majority is not ignorant nor stupid, which puts me in the minority (the ignorant and stupid)?

Okay. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but what is this based on? Perhaps I may be ignorant, but at least I have the intelligence to identify this deficit and (actively) seek to eliminate it. Keep in mind I'm saying the majority of people I interact with are twits. Obviously within different groups there are different levels of intelligence. Most of the Communists I have met are intellectuals.

When I say a totalitarian governent would work well, I do not mean one that continually oppresses its people, but one that is run by a select few intellectuals who work for the greater good of the people and elmination of castes. In addition to that, I suppose anarchy would work well if people had the means to work with each other and for each other without putting themselves first (namely by means of theft and murder).

This is, of course in theory. All political systems work very well in theory, I suppose when it is inducted into use the flaws of human nature becomes apparent. Perhaps I am satisfied with the Republic we have now in America?


Anyway, I continue to deny I'm a fascist as I don't have any from of racism, et cetera within me.

Also, IIRC a Stalinistic society would be one with a dictatorship and Secret Police? There's a difference between that and one in which is an oligarchy that uses censorship to promote peace in rare circumstances.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I think that the majority of the public is stupid or ignorant and should not be allowed to make their own decisions.

I believe the majority of the public will fight for the right to make their stupid choices making the above situation nearly impossible

I believe that energy, healthcare, military, and law enforcement should be free and controlled by the government.I'm sure everyone has said the same thing. Try researching Facism.

You are on a communist (There are other subclasses) forum and basically everything you said most people here are completely against. I do believe that the majority of the public is stupid, but thats because they aren't allowed to make their own decisions, and some major public television brainwashing is going on.

[CXR]

Well, obviously what I said is generally disagreed with, but I figure that Communists know more about this stuff than your average Republican/Democrat, which is why I came here.

So, you're saying that a lack of choice breeds stupidity? While I disagree with that, I also think that today's people have a lot of choice and one of those choices is what to beleive and what information to discard.




Also, Totalitarianism does not equal Fascism.


EDIT- Can someone give me an abridged verion of Communism? I can't understand the FAQ well. There are three kinds of Socialists, and I can't tell who you hate, and everything is confusing to me. Learn me some Communism.


EDIT- !!! I think I finally understand Communism, and it's now, how I would say, appealing even if it contradicts with what I previously believed. I wouldn't say I'm a convert, but....

[trivas7]

Hey guys:
I think that the majority of the public is stupid or ignorant and should not be allowed to make their own decisions.

I believe the majority of the public will fight for the right to make their stupid choices making the above situation nearly impossible

I believe that energy, healthcare, military, and law enforcement should be free and controlled by the government.

I do not believe in total freedom of speech (Censured lightly. Only to prevent rioting and other implications.)

So, what am I?

Most of these aren't political designations. Why not just call yourself non-aligned?:lol:

[RoterAnarchie]

Seems like a Nazi to me...
The basis of nazi ideology isn't really racist or even that nationlistic. (SA)
Hitler turned it into some kind of capitalist fascismn ofcourse.

I find some Stalinist points in you as well. Almost like in 1984 :)

[#FF0000]

Sounds a lot like Plato's Republic, to be honest.

In any case, I'm curious, CXR, as to why you think the majority are ignorant. Are they born ignorant, or is it a result of the conditions the majority are surrounded by, or is it something else?

[RoterAnarchie]

only a very small group of humans is capable of grasping the complicatedness of our society
that small group automatically has the power OR gets frustrated and is on this forum :)


if we decomplicate the society (smaller community's, less technology, ...) everybody will be able to grasp reality and there will be true equality
in dutch I call the theory of "de grootste gemene deler" (like in math)
meaning society should adjust to its less evolved members and thus slowly evolve as society in one piece

[CXR]

Sounds a lot like Plato's Republic, to be honest.

In any case, I'm curious, CXR, as to why you think the majority are ignorant. Are they born ignorant, or is it a result of the conditions the majority are surrounded by, or is it something else?

I believe that the public is not born stupid, but as a result of a lack of proper education and abundance of misinformation (which they can not differentiate from real information due to the lack of education). Later in life they become set in what they beleive, becoming stubborn and willingly ignorant.


Also, 1984 was a great book.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I also think that today's people have a lot of choice and one of those choices is what to beleive and what information to discard.Nope Fox News Decides that for them
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OSAOQuLxSdY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OSAOQuLxSdY


DO NOTE BLAME ME IF SOMETHING WEIRD IS ON THESE VIDEOS!!! I just typed in Fox and took the first ones I don't have the time to watch them

[Led Zeppelin]

I think that the majority of the public is stupid or ignorant

No offense but you're one of them.

[Voice_of_Reason]

No offense but you're one of them.

We were all thinking it and someone finally said it. Thank You.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think theoretically a communist society would work the best but I don't trust people.

Then you're not a communist.


EDIT- Perhaps this "stupid" public could be educated by a communistic society?

How do you expect communism to be achieved if the "public" are too "stupid"?

Perhaps reading some Karl Marx would help you better understand consciousness in societies.


Now, I've read the FAQs, but I have trouble figuring out everything. In a communist society, is everyone allowed an amount of currency to purchase things pertinent to their interest, like extra food or bicycles, computers, et cetera? Is it optional?

Money wouldn't exist in a communist society because it would serve no purpose. It would become meaningless. If you want a bike or a computer (which presumably we all will want) we will have to organise creating them.

[Red Peace]

seems to me that you might be someone who would believe in some form of all power state, that does everything for the people, even thinks for them. You've said yourself that they would just make bad decisions because they are all stupid. That would make you someone who would support a fascist system in my opinion, seeing as how you don't believe people can do the right thing when left on there own.

[CXR]

Then you're not a communist.


Verily, as of now.

Upon reading more, I beleive that either governement should be totalitarian or non-existent, and everything in between is a poor compromise. Now, I'm beginning to lean towards anarchy. I began to look into why I thought people were stupid, but I now think that it IS becuase of brainwashing. Of course there is a choice in what to believe, but some people may not even know that and need to be liberated. After we release them from these mental confinements they can become productive and cooperative citizens of society.

I think that a totalitarian society would work smoother from the get-go but ultimately would be unstable, so cooperative anarchy would work the best.

I think I've been dang near converted.


"No offense but you're one of them."

:deadhorse:


EDIT- So, in communism currency is non-existent. If you want something you must cooperate with people around you to have one built. What if you want something that is not produced easily or produced in a far-away place? Would you then have to cooperate to get it shipped/brought to you?

What are your views on sustainable living? Criminals? What about if someone is, by choice, a non-productive denizen?

[RoterAnarchie]

may I btw point out that to produce computers you need thousands of people, huge buildings, ALOT of power and a massive amount of resources that come from all around the world

coöperation would never be enough to produce high technological products

I chose a society without technology (funny thing, i use technology to promote my ideals) where only the most necesairy things are produced


(sorry for bad english)

[CXR]

may I btw point out that to produce computers you need thousands of people, huge buildings, ALOT of power and a massive amount of resources that come from all around the world

coöperation would never be enough to produce high technological products

I chose a society without technology (funny thing, i use technology to promote my ideals) where only the most necesairy things are produced


(sorry for bad english)

So, a communist society would be free of cars, computers, calculators, vaccines, planes, medicine and scientific exploration?

I'm pretty sure all of these need a high amount of cooperation between everyone to produce, as these are things that are very incorporporated into our lives. People will surely not want to live without these, no?

[RoterAnarchie]

it would only be so if you didn't have some kind of government
people can cooperate easily without hierarchy, but i don't believe it is possible with tens of thousands of people on international level
it might be i understood my comrades post somewhat wrong
my english is not so well, my apologies

also want to point out i'm not really ANTI- technology
I just prefer small society's with only basic goods (to me it would be the best way to accomodate social-anarchy)

[Sam_b]

I beleive that either governement should be totalitarian or non-existent

http://s60.photobucket.com/albums/h3/Ren1345/th_facepalm.png

[CXR]

I say it needs to be one or the other becuase in a totalitarian government the people need not be re-informed and can continue nearly in the way they were before since the government will (should) protect them from misinformed decisions.

In the anarchist situation they need to be reformed before any change can happen or there will be no cooperation and misinformed descisions will be rampant.



Or perhaps you all can try to inform me instead of

"You're a facist"
"You're an idiot"
"Hur hur /facepalm/"

[Sam_b]

I say it needs to be one or the other becuase in a totalitarian government the people need not be re-informed and can continue nearly in the way they were before since the government will (should) protect them from misinformed decisions.

In the anarchist situation they need to be reformed before any change can happen or there will be no cooperation and misinformed descisions will be rampant.

It really does say it all that you don't believe that the mass of the people aren't intelligent to do anything for themselves, to think for themselves, to be people who aren't depandant on those above them to even exist.

And people are informing you, in a very simple way: you're a fascist. Look it up.

[CXR]

It really does say it all that you don't believe that the mass of the people aren't intelligent to do anything for themselves, to think for themselves, to be people who aren't depandant on those above them to even exist.

And people are informing you, in a very simple way: you're a fascist. Look it up.

I believe the mass of people have been mislead and purposely kept ignorant by the government and media, who make descisions on what and what not to believe.

I now believe that the mass is not at fault for how they are, but rather their government. Elminate the problem and the masses become the solution.

[Sam_b]

I believe the mass of people have been mislead and purposely kept ignorant by the government and media, who make descisions on what and what not to believe.

And so totalitarianism is a solution to this?

Bollocks it is.

[CXR]

And so totalitarianism is a solution to this?

Bollocks it is.

No, anarcho-communism is the solution and totalitarianism is the quick-fix.

[Omi]

So, a communist society would be free of cars, computers, calculators, vaccines, planes, medicine and scientific exploration?

I'm pretty sure all of these need a high amount of cooperation between everyone to produce, as these are things that are very incorporporated into our lives. People will surely not want to live without these, no?



Hold it! That's a form of anarcho-primitivism you are talking about, an ideal not everyone on this board agrees with, to put it softly.

I personally think that neither government nor hierarchy is productive or supportive for the people.

How do you plan to ''set up'' a totalitairian state, don't power hungry people with no desire to do good manifest themselves in such a government? Won't it dissolve in friends-politics and be opressive to the poeple instead of the ideals by which they came and took power?
If you can't trust men to govern themselves, do not trust anybody to govern others.

Anarchism is the way! And it's not primitivism I'm talking about, anarchism is about the progress of humanity and the earth, not regress such as primitivists seek.

[CXR]

I'm not saying we HAVE to be free of modern science and other conveniences, but I would say it will take a lot of orginization to build advanced technology when there is no benefit other than knowing you're helping your society. Ideally we would have all of this but I would say it is a diffucult problem to solve....

Totalitarianism is a way to protect the People from their choices that may be misinformed. This is of course not an ideal solution as it merely masks the underlying problem instead of solving it. In an anarcho-communist society, the People would be released from misinformation and be given choices- choices that may be made with true information.


So, I guess you could say I'm beggining to become and anarcho-communist? I don't know crap about the nuances though....


Anyway, how would an anarchist society mobilize in the event of rebels who are trying to overthrow (can you overthrow something that's not there?) the current system? I assume a militia would be formed? There is no formal military, however, correct?

[Q]

No he sounds like a Stalinist.
I agree.

Stalinism provides everything CXR writes about in his first post: no democracy, no freedom of speech and supporting a certain amount of distribution of wealth. If however he focuses more on capitalism, a fascist would apply more.

[CXR]

I agree.

Stalinism provides everything CXR writes about in his first post: no democracy, no freedom of speech and supporting a certain amount of distribution of wealth. If however he focuses more on capitalism, a fascist would apply more.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't have freedom of speech limited to the extent of a Stalinist society.

[Dros]

OMGZ TEH SATLINIST IS EVILZ!!!


Seriously grow up and read a fucking book.

[CXR]

OMGZ TEH SATLINIST IS EVILZ!!!


Seriously grow up and read a fucking book.

Is that directed at me? I never said Stalinism would be terrible, I just said I wouldn't limit free speech to that extent....

[gla22]

We know Stalin did some good things but the bad far outweighs the good, he betryed the revolution especially with the shit he pulled in Spain.

[Q]

OMGZ TEH SATLINIST IS EVILZ!!!


Seriously grow up and read a fucking book.
Like this one for example? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/)

[eyedrop]

Anyway, how would an anarchist society mobilize in the event of rebels who are trying to overthrow (can you overthrow something that's not there?) the current system? I assume a militia would be formed? There is no formal military, however, correct? Most anarchist would agree with this I believe.

As for your point about stupidity amongst the populace, it may seem like it is so today. But people are affected by how they live their life. A person who first goes through years of being taught what to believe at school, which rewards blind copying and not critical thinking, and then ends up in a no future job of delivering mail the rest of his life without making any meaningful decisions. He isn't rewarded much for being smart, and will therefore appear stupider, even be, stupider than he is.

When people don't make meaningful decisions they wont be good decisionmakers, allow them and they will develop into better decisionmakers. Besides one can't really say that todays society is run rationally, there are a lot idiots on top of the decisionmaking nowadays.

[Dros]

Like this one for example?

I guess if you go in for that kind of nonsense.

[gla22]

^^^^^

Come on Drosera. Sectarianism aside: Stalin can not be upheld as "good" for the communist movement.

[Dros]

Stalin can not be upheld as "good" for the communist movement.

In fact he can. Of course Stalin made grevious errors. But it is important to understand why, both materially and ideologically those errors occurred and to understand them in the context of the USSR during that period and to understand what philosophical and methodological mistakes led to these policy errors instead of just spewing the old "Stalin is so evil" bullshit.

Stalin built and defended socialism in a country surrounded by capitalists, imperialists, and fascists for more than twenty five years. Encircled by people in Russia both within and outside of the CPSU who wanted to stop him and by foreign agents conspiring to defeat him, he lifted Russia out of the middle ages, gave modern education and healthcare to people who would have never received such things. He defeated Fascism. He collectivized agriculture and industrialized production. He greatly increased the standard of living. But in the course of pursuing these things, most of which were being pursued for the first time in the history of humanity he made serious errors. Most of these errors were grounded in the fact that Stalin's grasp of dialectics is flawed. I believe that is fundamentally what caused Stalin to error. He had a rigid and mechanical way of approaching contradiction. But ask yourself this: did the first shipwright build the Titanic? So why should we expect the first architect of socialism to build a skyscraper? As it stands, the contributions of Comrade Stalin and the great achievements of Soviet Socialism still stand to this day as one of the Communist Movements finest accomplishments.