I'd like to hear your side, REALLY [Archive]

ntar

13th June 2008, 21:38

first i want to say i'm not here to cause problems, I seriously want to hear the other side, straight from the horses mouth if you will. also, i must tell you i'm only 24yrs old. I have only started to follow polotics for about a year now. So i'm still learning. I have read a few other post and am pretty unfamiliar with terms like anarcho-capitolist. just something to keep in mind

Ok, I used to be left, or atleast was brought up to be. Then I opened my mind alittle and the right pulled me over. Well i'm more libertarian anyways, but if I were to lean it be at the "right". no offense intended. "OPEN MIND" didn't mean it "that" way, just used that for lack of better words.

Here is what I have been told by my right wing mentors. I'm having a hard time believing it all. As to why I'm here. below are from the extreme end of what I have been told.

1) left wing want socialism-to the old russia degree

2) left wing want to take all personal freedoms away and have the government make all personal/life choices for citizens. for example we couldn't have the right to have children. we would need permision from the government, no more tobacco,firearms, and alcohol, or bassically anything pottentially causing harm to a human. Something as harmless as transfats (when eating in moderation of course).

3)kinda like 2, but a "NANNY STATE"

4) no more private buisness, no more rich people,
(i am hardley rich, i actually fall at the lower class/middleclass bracket, born into a very poor family)

5) no more personal rights (ammendments)

6) and i can't think of anything else, oh yeah, NWO, global government police state

well is this how you guys really feel the world should be run and if so why?

I just read this on another thread forget who said it sorry. (communism discusion thread) "Socialists support the freedom of the individual in all spheres of life, and so any government which prevents open discussion of political affairs, or denies women the right to exercise control over their own bodies, cannot be described as Socialist." and....

"Communism is where there is no state or government, and the workers own the means of production."

this is contrarie to what i've been told by the right. please explain "No state/government", "workers own the means of production"

also, i do agree, the balance of power is not balanced. Commodities trading is a bit perplexing, you know, we could never ever start our own energy buisness. I do agree, that hardly seems fair, and when you think of the potential problems with monopoly it does could get ugly. I just don't understand how this rational is justifiable or logical. Do you really want to have the same income as everyone else? Never a hope to exceed in life?

here is another problem i'm having.

say the world was a global run communist nation.

Why would jonny go to school to become a Doctor when he is only going to make the same amount of money as billy the cashier?

ntar

13th June 2008, 22:21

i've read someother threads, i see there are many 16-20yr olds. this may not be the place for me. I only want to talk to well versed people. I'm here to be convinced, not for some 16yr old tell me why he should be given everything for nothing, and barely knows what to do with his penis. I'm one who believes the voting age should be raised to like 22-25. I know how I was at 18. Untill you have moved out of your parrents home and have lived "Real Life" for your self I just don't think you have enough knowlege to successfully vote. Don't know how the world works kinda thing. I do reconize there are exceptions.

Bright Banana Beard

13th June 2008, 22:26

1) left wing want socialism-to the old russia degreePolitical spectrum is irreverent, they been changing every century. Russia is a failure, why would we go back there?

2) left wing want to take all personal freedoms away and have the government make all personal/life choices for citizens. for example we couldn't have the right to have children. we would need permision from the government, no more tobacco,firearms, and alcohol, or bassically anything pottentially causing harm to a human. Something as harmless as transfats (when eating in moderation of course).We have to laugh at this. We do not want the government and police. We want human liberation. We want democratic commune and we do not want to own anyone. How about the church in medieval age? right-winger preach it.

3)kinda like 2, but a "NANNY STATE"First at all, we favored collectivization to the local or the commune, not by some leader that appointed by some official.

4) no more private business, no more rich people,
(i am hardley rich, i actually fall at the lower class/middleclass bracket, born into a very poor family)Abolishing class are what the main point seeking for. If you want simple life, go ahead. If u want big house, go ahead. However, u can't exploit other unless the commune allows it

5) no more personal rights (ammendments)Terrorist, we must defend ourselves! this is spur by right-winger. Dont fall for that joke, we oppose identification and wish everyone to have completely privacy. Those terrorist has been oppressed by the government as U.S. install them. However, we do not agree with their religion domination.

6) and i can't think of anything else, oh yeah, NWO, global government police stateNone of those.

well is this how you guys really feel the world should be run and if so why?We want the worker to run the world democratically, however the rich people will not give up, hence that why we are seeking global revolution from the masses support. We will not go for the party nor reform it.

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 22:32

To do this briefly

1) left wing want socialism-to the old russia degree

Nope. If one accepts that the Soviet Union was hardly ideal, one is hardly going to want to return to it. If one on the other hand thinks it was perfect, they are still not going to want to return to it, but rather to their idealised notion of what it was like.

2) left wing want to take all personal freedoms away and have the government make all personal/life choices for citizens. for example we couldn't have the right to have children. we would need permision from the government, no more tobacco,firearms, and alcohol, or bassically anything pottentially causing harm to a human. Something as harmless as transfats (when eating in moderation of course).
Come on, who argues against personal freedoms like that?

3)kinda like 2, but a "NANNY STATE"
In practice it tends to be right wing Governments that go for the nanny state kind of thing. Singapore is a good example

4) no more private buisness, no more rich people,
(i am hardley rich, i actually fall at the lower class/middleclass bracket, born into a very poor family)Well we do not favour private ownership of the means of production, recognising it as the primary cause of poverty. However to get from their to saying we want people to be poor is non sequiter.

5) no more personal rights (ammendments)

Again, no. Anyway what do you mean by amendments here, constitutional amendments?

6) and i can't think of anything else, oh yeah, NWO, global government police state

Ah come on, mate. You don't believe in NWO shit, do you? That's tinfoil hat territory.

Anyway Communists are internationalists, we wish to see the breaking down of borders. There is one world and we all live in it after all.

ntar

13th June 2008, 22:34

ntar

13th June 2008, 22:41

6) and i can't think of anything else, oh yeah, NWO, global government police state
"Ah come on, mate. You don't believe in NWO shit, do you? That's tinfoil hat territory."

actually the elitist have already admitted to working towards A global government. This is no longer conspiracy theory as it once was. I had a hard time believing my self. If you want sources it will take me acouple days, but i can provide them. Or you could just buy a copy of Rockwell's Memoirs

also, i know my Perception of the Right is extreme, no more rights, etc, etc, etc,. This is seriously what I have been taught about democrats. This is why i'm here. My family are all democrats. I once thought socialism could provide the answer. I just don' t know what you people are all about. Again, not here to cause problems or argue, I just want the truth from the right. After all, the left are bios when talking about the right, just as in the right are bios when discussing the left.

Bright Banana Beard

13th June 2008, 22:42

so the idea is to take over the world (NWO), to end all tryanny? not by some strict organization by army, but by the worker themselves. We will give them aids if they request. the militia has to be democratic and fully volunteer, or we already failed the revolution.

well this is not what i've been taught about communism, this is right up my alley. you have got me interested. I came here wanting to learn. I am. I believe we need all sides of the story. This isn't surprising since the rich are scare of us thinking their wealth will be meaningless, so they actually go cross the line and label communism as "evil."
You are aware that many union are crushed, that is unacceptable.

2) anarchy: no government state, but peace
Marxism and Anarchism are only different in the transitional of event. Marxism urges for another worker's state to oppress any bourgeoisie element. Anarchism rejects the need for worker's state.

Pirate turtle the 11th

13th June 2008, 22:45

I should probably mention I was a self proclaimed Anarchist when I was a youth. Have a anarchy tattoo even, I was pretty serious about it.

so the idea is to take over the world (NWO), to end all tryanny?

well this is not what i've been taught about communism, this is right up my alley. you have got me interested. I came here wanting to learn. I am. I believe we need all sides of the story.

this is in the 2nd version-ANARCHY

1) anarchy: total caos

2) anarchy: no government state, but peace

you should hang around the anarchist section and read some books from the Marxist archive ( read bakuin now!!!)

and the
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://rs2kpapers.awardspace.com/)
are fantastic and written by a member of this website

ntar

13th June 2008, 23:00

Wow, thank you all. I was expecting to get no comments. I will learn this idea. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. no pun intended.

I asked this earlyier. bigest problem i have with communism. My perception of communism is obviously scewed. so the below question may my irrelevent.

Why would jonny go to school to become a doctor, when he will make the same money as Billy the cashier?

I don't mind reading guys, if you'd rather just give me a link to info so people don't have to type so much. Forums can be very time consuming. I'll gladdly dig through 100's of pages for the truth. it's all i want.

oh yeah. I never really learned to spell. I'm actually very intelegent in the scientific and mathmatical areas. Never got into english class. So please don't assume I'm some uneducated moron by the way I spell. I do have abit of college. "Computer Science". I have a child though, an coulnd't handle the work/school/family stress. so no degree for me. Yet.

KrazyRabidSheep

13th June 2008, 23:03

Learning about socialism and communism is not easy.
Nor will you get it at first.

Personally I have been concentrating on Trotskyism for a while now, and I am overwhelmed. However I know (from past experiences learning) that it will slowly come together.

There are no "Communism for Dummies" books (any worthwhile, anyhow.)

It takes lots of discussion and reading, but if you stay with rev-left (with an open mind), you will learn
We just ask that you hold judgement until after you understand communism. It is biases that are our worst enemy.

1) left wing want socialism-to the old russia degreeFirst off, define "socialism".

The easy answer, without a better definition of what you think socialism is, would be most of us don't support Soviet socialism.

Yes, many of us designate ourselves as "Leninists", "Trotskyist", or "Stalinist", but what these men wanted for the Soviet Union is not what happened.

We follow the theories, not the realities.

2) left wing want to take all personal freedoms away and have the government make all personal/life choices for citizens. for example we couldn't have the right to have children. we would need permision from the government, no more tobacco,firearms, and alcohol, or bassically anything pottentially causing harm to a human. Something as harmless as transfats (when eating in moderation of course).This is no more then right-wing propaganda.

Again, the views on the left-wing differ, but this is not a "left"/"right" issue, but an "authoritarian"/"libertarian" issue.

Anarchists, for example, believe in the importance of personal freedoms to a point that would probably scare you (it scares the hell out of me :D)

Most of us support personal freedoms to a degree that surpasses most right-wingers (right/libertarians are somewhat rare.)

For more info on left/right vs libertarian/authoritarian, see: http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
and take the test
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

You should learn much about politics and yourself.

3)kinda like 2, but a "NANNY STATE"I have never heard this term, and I don't understand what you mean

4) no more private buisness, no more rich people,
(i am hardley rich, i actually fall at the lower class/middleclass bracket, born into a very poor family)Two points
1. Yes, I do support the abolishment of private business in favour of communally owned ventures
2. Most people are under a delusion that they are "middle-class" when they are not. Rich people don't want to see themselves as elitists, and poor people don't want to see themselves as poor.

Additionally, it is possible to be in more then one class.
For example: I grew up in a lower-class and working-class (proletariat) home. Not only did my family not have any money or property to speak of, we were also not bourgeoisie. This might seem complicated, but no more then a feudal system (which throws aristocrats, merchants, and serfs into the mix.)

For example, under a feudal system, one can have a title (be an aristocrat) but not have any money (perhaps the family squandered is). During the industrial revolution, some capitalists (bourgeoisie) came into money, but they didn't have any titles (therefore not an aristocrat.)

Some of Marx's social classes include:
The Proletariat
The Bourgeoisie
The Petit Bourgeoisie
The Lumpenproletariat
The Landlords
The Peasantry and farmers

5) no more personal rights (ammendments)Once again, this is right-wing propaganda. See #2

6) and i can't think of anything else, oh yeah, NWO, global government police stateAre right-wingers trying to pass that crap off as "communist"?
Who came up with the "League of Nations" and later with "United Nations"?
The Warsaw Pact is disbanded, yet NATO still exists.

You tell me, if there's a NWO, who's behind it?

Personally, I think the NWO is a load of crap. others disagree, and I respect that, but how can it be placed as a leftist conspiracy.

Perhaps they have confused "international revolution" with NWO?

Why would jonny go to school to become a Doctor when he is only going to make the same amount of money as billy the cashier?Yet another misconception.

Have you ever heard:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

This covers that wealth will be fairly distributed, not evenly.

Of course a Dr. should make more then a cashier. A doctor contributes more to society. However, the cashier has a right to live, too (and should be paid as such.)

However, should an heiress have more money then a miner? Who contributes more to society? The miner gathers resources needed for society. The other is Paris Hilton.

A doctor should receive some compensation for his effort, but should it cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (USD) for one capable to be a doctor to become a doctor?
Should a doctor make hundreds of thousands of dollars when the nurses who make the whole hospital run get hardly anything?

Pirate turtle the 11th

13th June 2008, 23:07

Why would jonny go to school to become a doctor, when he will make the same money as Billy the cashier?

Because johhny would want to be a doctor and billy would want to be a cashier. ( BTW some people here myself included call for the abolition of money).

Demogorgon

13th June 2008, 23:09

Why would jonny go to school to become a doctor, when he will make the same money as Billy the cashier?

To be rather old fashioned here, a fair exchange according to Communism is one where one product of labour is exchanged for the product of equal labour (taking into account whatever fractions and so forth). Is the work of a cashier of equal value to that of a Doctor. Is the same amount of labour going in. To be sure, the division is probably less than capitalism places it at. A cashier is obviously underpaid, but there is no reason to take from that that it is identical labour.

Also there are other reasons why someone would rather be a doctor than a cashier. Being a doctor is less tedious after all.

13th June 2008, 23:38

Have you read the Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)? It was written by Engels (Marx's counterpart and lifelong friend) and was used as a preliminary version of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. I would suggest starting with that, as it's very easy to read (you could read it in one sitting) and deals with many aspects of Marxism in a way that is easy to understand.

After reading that you should post a thread in here so we can discuss your thoughts on the work.

Bright Banana Beard

13th June 2008, 23:42

My perception of communism is obviously scewed. of course, capitalist has done well, calling us "evil." However, you are need to be aware that Marxism is very divisive (origin from the lack of communcation between them) and they still are to this day.

Why would jonny go to school to become a doctor, when he will make the same money as Billy the cashier? French socialism believes in equal wage, but we do not because it too unfair in term of who is producing more or less.

I do have abit of college. "Computer Science". I have a child though, an coulnd't handle the work/school/family stress. so no degree for me. Yet. You are not alone. My English are messed up by learning American Sign Language from the beginning. And please, do not idealize us as peaceful, happy communer, treehugger hippy, we ain't. We here to liberate from today's society and are able to criticize to each other. unity in strength is also not for us. I am not blaming you, but to remind you.

Offtopic:Good thing you have anarchist tattoo. :lol: Don't get caught by Stalinist, although.

Shahzad

14th June 2008, 01:12

1) left wing want socialism-to the old russia degree

Which left wing? The left are a very broad grouping. Few on the left today want a return to Soviet style authoritarian rule. Our shared goal is that the workers control the means of production, rather than a handful of loathsome oligarchs.

2) left wing want to take all personal freedoms away and have the government make all personal/life choices for citizens.No, the reverse is true. Most on the left want increased personal freedom including the right to have children (and to not have children ;)), drink, smoke, have sex etc. Liberation for all.

3)kinda like 2, but a "NANNY STATE"See my answer to 2.

4) no more private buisness, no more rich people,
(i am hardley rich, i actually fall at the lower class/middleclass bracket, born into a very poor family)I favour a massive redistribution of wealth from the super rich, global capitalists who do no real work themselves but profit from the labour of thousands of workers, to those that need it most.

5) no more personal rights (ammendments)This is basically the same question as 2.

6) and i can't think of anything else, oh yeah, NWO, global government police stateI usually hear the term NWO thrown about by Neo-Nazis and other right wing extremists criticising immigration, nothing to do with communism, socialism or anarchism though we are internationalists and condemn nationalism.

Why would jonny go to school to become a Doctor when he is only going to make the same amount of money as billy the cashier?Personally I think one should be rewarded according to the value and volume of work one does, so I believe a doctor should get more. The point is that they are rewarded according to the work they do rather than profiting from the hands of others.

Bud Struggle

14th June 2008, 13:52

Learning about socialism and communism is not easy.
Nor will you get it at first.

I agree with that.

It takes lots of discussion and reading, but if you stay with rev-left (with an open mind), you will learn
We just ask that you hold judgement until after you understand communism. It is biases that are our worst enemy.

I agree with that, too.

The easy answer, without a better definition of what you think socialism is, would be most of us don't support Soviet socialism.

Yes, many of us designate ourselves as "Leninists", "Trotskyist", or "Stalinist", but what these men wanted for the Soviet Union is not what happened.
And there's the problem--Communism has nice ideas, but they seem to fall apart EVERY time they are tried out. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Communism always seem to degenerate into some totalitarian-cult of the personality slave state.

We follow the theories, not the realities.

While Communism SEEMS good on paper--no one, after many, many tries, can seem to make it work in reality. BUT Communism DOES have some very useful ideas and methods that are certainly worth a try.

Again, the views on the left-wing differ, but this is not a "left"/"right" issue, but an "authoritarian"/"libertarian" issue. Again, nice in theory, but "Glorious Leaders" abound in Communism--not so much for anarchical Communism.

Most of us support personal freedoms to a degree that surpasses most right-wingers (right/libertarians are somewhat rare.)

In theory again, not when actually put into practrice.

I have never heard this term, and I don't understand what you mean.

A "nanny state" is one where the government supplies everything and people don't have to rely on their own initiative. They make sure you wear your seat belt so you don't get hurt, have enough to eat, have insurance for when you get sick, etc.

2. Most people are under a delusion that they are "middle-class" when they are not. Rich people don't want to see themselves as elitists, and poor people don't want to see themselves as poor.

This is totally artificial and synthetic. Your class is anything YOU discribe as you class. There is no reason to take Marx's word for what class you are in. His opinion on the subject is as good as anyone elses. Class structure is one of those things that Marxists seem to throw at people as if it is some "reality" rather than part of a not too successful economic theory written by some guy 150 years ago and has long ago outlived its usefullness.

Some of Marx's social classes include:
The Proletariat
The Bourgeoisie
The Petit Bourgeoisie
The Lumpenproletariat
The Landlords
The Peasantry and farmers

Nothing in reality but an old economic theory from the 19th Century. The world has long ago bypassed such ideas--but Communist are still trying to fit a 150 year old "class system" into the 21st Century. A good example of this is" "2. Most people are under a delusion that they are "middle-class" when they are not. Rich people don't want to see themselves as elitists, and poor people don't want to see themselves as poor." This kind of "class" thinking no longer works.

Once again, this is right-wing propaganda. See #2

And once again--Communism may not posit a totalitarian society, but it always seem to work out that way.

But all that being said--it is improtant to understand how Communism works and has contributed to the world system. Communism may not work as a coherent system, but it's emphisis on individual human equality and the meaningfulness of work in a person's life are very important. If you view Marxism as a take it all or leave it whole, you will run into a lot of problems, but if you take Marxism as a buffet table with some good thing and some things better left in the past it can be a very fruitful theory to study.

But it should be one of many economic/political theories that you study.

Best of luck. :)

KrazyRabidSheep

14th June 2008, 22:27

And there's the problem--Communism has nice ideas, but they seem to fall apart EVERY time they are tried out. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Communism always seem to degenerate into some totalitarian-cult of the personality slave state.
Theoretical capitalism and feudalism are good ideas, too.
Monarchy and Fascism in work in theory.

No other social structure works, either. They are all abused, therefore that argument is invalid.

While Communism SEEMS good on paper--no one, after many, many tries, can seem to make it work in reality. BUT Communism DOES have some very useful ideas and methods that are certainly worth a try.
This seems like the same statement above.

Again, the views on the left-wing differ, but this is not a "left"/"right" issue, but an "authoritarian"/"libertarian" issue. Again, nice in theory, but "Glorious Leaders" abound in Communism--not so much for anarchical Communism.
"Glorious Leaders" have absolutely nothing to do with the political compass.

That said, Nelson Mandela spent years and years fighting with the ANC (a communist group; read the Freedom Charter), yet he is in the lower left quad of the compass.

Most of us support personal freedoms to a degree that surpasses most right-wingers (right/libertarians are somewhat rare.) In theory again, not when actually put into practrice.
Why would you keep repeating an argument (theoretical vs. historical) over and over again? If you've got nothing more to contribute, then don't.

Anyhow, show me the most extensive list of persons you can name in the lower/right spectrum of the political compass. We can list twice as many in the lower/left easily.

This is totally artificial and synthetic. Your class is anything YOU discribe as you class. There is no reason to take Marx's word for what class you are in. His opinion on the subject is as good as anyone elses. Class structure is one of those things that Marxists seem to throw at people as if it is some "reality" rather than part of a not too successful economic theory written by some guy 150 years ago and has long ago outlived its usefullness. I agree that a person can term new classes, otherwise how could I belong to so many?

However, Marx was much smarter then I am (or anyone else on this forum, I am sure), so I will use his class structure just as I use Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table (another dead guy much smarter then I could ever hope to be.)

If you are so keen on throwing out old, dead, white men's ideas, simply because they're "out of date" perhaps you'd like to start with any social structure older then communism?

Why stop at social structure? Throw out all science and religion; all accumulated human knowledge.
Screw Copernicus! Did he ever travel into space? Fuck Hippocrates! He wouldn't know an endotracheal intubation from a duel lumen airway. If Marx is obsolete, how many other historical figure are?

Nothing in reality but an old economic theory from the 19th Century. The world has long ago bypassed such ideas--but Communist are still trying to fit a 150 year old "class system" into the 21st Century. A good example of this is" "2. Most people are under a delusion that they are "middle-class" when they are not. Rich people don't want to see themselves as elitists, and poor people don't want to see themselves as poor." This kind of "class" thinking no longer works.
Then why do we hear so much about [insert random developing nation here]'s growing middle class from conservative news sources?

If there is no middle class, then there is either a submissive, working class and a dominate elite class, or no class at all.

If there is no class at all, why are there people like me who sell our time? I sell time (and admittedly expertise) out of my life in exchange for money from people who have it (and don't need to sell their own time.)

And once again--Communism may not posit a totalitarian society, but it always seem to work out that way.
Once again propaganda.

You chose to ignore non-left totalitarian states and that no other social structure has worked as it should. This said, how is communism worse?

Furthermore, you are redefining communism (so that your unnamed examples fit the bill, although they do not), assuming that past events are an irrefutable indication of future events, and ignoring nomadic and primordial societies.

Or perhaps you are naive, and take the word of the government. Yes, some horrible governments have claimed to be communist, but does that make it true?

Let's have a test:
I AM A FISH! I don't have lungs, I have gills. I swim in a tank with my own fecal matter all day long.

However, since I am still typing, and I'm not asphyxiating, we shall assume that even though I claimed to be a fish, I am not.

The Paris Commune and the Iroquois Confederacy resemble communism much more then any of these "communist states" (an oxymoron unto itself). Perhaps you'd prefer to critique them instead?

trivas7

14th June 2008, 22:47

here is another problem i'm having.

say the world was a global run communist nation.

Why would jonny go to school to become a Doctor when he is only going to make the same amount of money as billy the cashier?
But there is no money -- or nation -- under communism.:D

Post-Something

14th June 2008, 22:56

I think you should read this: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html

It explains the ideas really well.

Bud Struggle

14th June 2008, 23:08

Theoretical capitalism and feudalism are good ideas, too.
Monarchy and Fascism in work in theory.

No other social structure works, either. They are all abused, therefore that argument is invalid.

Capitalism works just fine. I personally am a Capitalist--an owner of production. It works.

"Glorious Leaders" have absolutely nothing to do with the political compass.

I don't give a hoot about the "political compass." It's a phoney as any other litmus test.

Why would you keep repeating an argument (theoretical vs. historical) over and over again? If you've got nothing more to contribute, then don't.

I was answering the same points that you made over and over again. :)

Anyhow, show me the most extensive list of persons you can name in the lower/right spectrum of the political compass. We can list twice as many in the lower/left easily.

Read above about my views on the "political compass."

I agree that a person can term new classes, otherwise how could I belong to so many?

You could be anything you want--stop being so bourgoise.

However, Marx was much smarter then I am (or anyone else on this forum, I am sure), so I will use his class structure just as I use Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table (another dead guy much smarter then I could ever hope to be.)

Hmmm. There those of us on this forum that have actually created something THAT WORKED. That would make us smarter than Marx. I would put Marx more in the category of Lamarck than Mendeleev.

If you are so keen on throwing out old, dead, white men's ideas, simply because they're "out of date" perhaps you'd like to start with any social structure older then communism?

Capitalism is constantly reinventing itself. That's how it destroyed the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block. No capitalist are quoting Adam Smith the way communists quote Marx.

Why stop at social structure? Throw out all science and religion; all accumulated human knowledge.
Screw Copernicus! Did he ever travel into space? Fuck Hippocrates! He wouldn't know an endotracheal intubation from a duel lumen airway. If Marx is obsolete, how many other historical figure are?

Lots. The people you mentioned are obsolete. They were important historical figures in the history of science, but no one goes to Newton or Galaleo to LEARN physics. No one goes to Galen to learn how the human body works. He was important in the uncovering of the science of anatomy--but no doctor uses his texts when do does an operation.

You misunderstand the uses of historical figures--they did much to uncover things--but science, and economics have moved beyond their simple theories.

Then why do we hear so much about [insert random developing nation here]'s growing middle class from conservative news sources?

If there is no middle class, then there is either a submissive, working class and a dominate elite class, or no class at all.

I really doubt the value of hording people into classes at all. It might have been fine a hundred years ago--but such things rarely apply today.

If there is no class at all, why are there people like me who sell our time? I sell time (and admittedly expertise) out of my life in exchange for money from people who have it (and don't need to sell their own time.)

You foil yourself when you include your value added "expertise" (I mean in no way to diminsh whatever you offer--I'm just using it as an example.) And also--just because people have OTHER things to offer rather than their time (as you do with your expertise,) it doesn't make what they bring to the table (capital for example) any less worthwhile.

You chose to ignore non-left totalitarian states and that no other social structure has worked as it should. This said, how is communism worse?

Hard to beat Pol Pot in Cambodia and North Korea. But admittedly Capitalist countries are often bad too.

Furthermore, you are redefining communism (so that your unnamed examples fit the bill, although they do not), assuming that past events are an irrefutable indication of future events, and ignoring nomadic and primordial societies.

I'm not redefining Communism--if anything you are. I'm just explaining what I see in the real world. You are the one that said that you follow theories not reality. Why should I trust you when you say that your theories are more "Communist" than Stalin or Mao or Lenin?

Or perhaps you are naive, and take the word of the government. Yes, some horrible governments have claimed to be communist, but does that make it true?

Well, I've been to the Soviet Union and Communist China, Communist Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Cuba. I've been to their supermarkets.

Let's have a test:

Let's not. :rolleyes:

The Paris Commune and the Iroquois Confederacy resemble communism much more then any of these "communist states" (an oxymoron unto itself). Perhaps you'd prefer to critique them instead?

Here's my critique of both those places: neither had ever heard of Carl Marx. :)

Robert

15th June 2008, 04:57

Furthermore, you are redefining communism (so that your unnamed examples fit the bill, although they do not), assuming that past events are an irrefutable indication of future events, and ignoring nomadic and primordial societies.

One or two failed experiments does not discredit a hypothesis.

But how many failures do you need to see, how long do you have to wait, before you start asking whether just maybe something is wrong with the theory?

Matty_UK

15th June 2008, 08:22

Here's my critique of both those places: neither had ever heard of Carl Marx. :)

Do you not think the fact that all the most revolutionary working class events have been carried out by people with no knowledge of marxism or any associated ideologies suggests that the desire for communism-as in, statelessness, classlessness, voluntary association-suggests that there's something innate in the human psyche that desires to live like this? After all, every single millenarian movement throughout history has been essentially communist flavour, condemning inequality and even property itself.

I'm really serious about this, I want to hear your response.

TheDevil'sApprentice

15th June 2008, 15:33

Capitalism works just fine. I personally am a Capitalist--an owner of production. It works.
'I personally am a slave owner/feudal aristocrat/soviet burocrat etc etc. It works just fine'
Lets play spot the falacy.

Hmmm. There those of us on this forum that have actually created something THAT WORKED. That would make us smarter than Marx. I would put Marx more in the category of Lamarck than Mendeleev.
What exactly do you mean when you say that what you created 'works', and what socialists created didnt? Course the USSR was 'state-capitalist' 'betrayed the revolution' etc etc - but if we are taling about economic productivity it worked brilliantly, particularly in the first half of its existence.

From the world banks stats:
‘Eastern European per capita gross domestic product compared to that of the O.E.C.D. (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is composed of the rich Western countries) declined from 64 to 57 percent between 1830 and 1913, then rose to 65 percent by 1950; declined to 63 percent by 1973; then fell to 56 percent by 1989. The overall growth rate from 1913 to 1950 was higher for Eastern Europe than for the O.E.C.D. countries (1.4 percent versus 1.1 percent), and higher from 1950 to 1989 for the O.E.C.D. countries than for Eastern Europe (2.3 percent versus 2.0 percent). The Bank's statistics indicate that Eastern Europe's per capita gross domestic product was 15.7 percent higher than Latin America's in 1913, but 77.6 percent higher by 1989. Furthermore, none of these figures take into account wealth distribution, which was far more skewed in both the O.E.C.D. countries and Latin America than in Eastern Europe.’

Socialist revolutions, even where they have been defeated by counterevolution wraped in a red flag have in almost every case improved the life of the people. They took third world countries and made them second world. When market-capitalism was restored, they went back to the third world.

Actual socialism, such as that practiced in the spansih revolution, worked fantastically.

Capitalism is constantly reinventing itself. That's how it destroyed the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block.
Evidence?

I really doubt the value of hording people into classes at all. It might have been fine a hundred years ago--but such things rarely apply today.
So you dont think there exist groups with shared interests in modern society? Or that thinking of society in terms of such groups could produce a useful model?

Hard to beat Pol Pot in Cambodia and North Korea.
The third reich?
Pol Pot was a complete goon, but many of the deaths attributed to him were infact the result of american bombing (more bombs were dropped on cambodia during the indochina conflict than on germany and japan combined in WWII - according to recieved history, they and their after effects didnt kill anyone).
I can come up with a laundry list of capitalist regimes and american client states worse than either of those. More pertinent however is the much larger number of market capitalist evil regimes than state capitalist ones. For any figure for the crimes of 'communism' (properly 'state capitalism') it would be a simple matter, using the same methodology, to come up with one several orders of magnitude higher for market captialism.

Why should I trust you when you say that your theories are more "Communist" than Stalin or Mao or Lenin?
Because communist theories existed for over 70 years before the russian revolution. They were very different to what the bolsheviks did.

EDIT:
I heartily second Alexander Berkmans 'What is Anarchist Communism':
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html

Or if you want something more indepth 'An Anarchist FAQ':
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

I don't agree that communism is hard to learn about. At least not the branches of it that make sense.

Robert

15th June 2008, 15:53

more bombs were dropped on cambodia during the indochina conflict than on germany and japan combined in WWII

Utter bullshit.

TheDevil'sApprentice

15th June 2008, 15:58

Utter bullshit.
Nope.
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/Walrus_CambodiaBombing_OCT06.pdf

Robert

15th June 2008, 16:33

Thanks for the link. I admit the numbers are impressive. It strikes me as odd that this report appears only in "The Walrus." No offense to the authors, but I'd like to see the source materials, these documents that Clinton released. Even if the "2.7 million tons" is accurate, though most sources I see put it at a little over 100,000 tons, it still strikes me as weirdly coincidental that the Allies dropped almost exactly that same number on Germany during WWII.

Color me skeptical, and I retract my "bullshit" accusation. Maybe you're right.

Kronos

15th June 2008, 19:02

Capitalism is economic nihilism, but it is a slow, cancerous process that cannot be stopped until it is too late. Where most people see only tomorrow....I see hundreds of years into the future.

What I would like to do is preserve the human species, so, I have to fight against any political/economic system that is not ultra-conservative. Listen, I am so far off in the future that I don't even see capitalists as people. They are already history in my eyes. I see them as a kind of temporary mistake, something that will be excised. My worst nightmare is that I will begin to hate my own class.....and I am indeed beginning to. It is very difficult to have sympathy for a worker who is so stupid, they don't realize what is happening. It is a matter of accepting the lesser of two evils: both the capitalist and the worker are idiots, but the worker is at least doing something.

If this world is not completely revolutionized, it will be destroyed. Imagine in the distant future, an alien tour ship passes by the earth. The pilot says over the loud-speaker:

"...and on the right, folks, is what is left of the planet earth. This planet would still be functional today, and thriving with human beings, but unfortunately something went terribly wrong. They evolved from monkeys, but continued to act like monkeys for thousands of years. Truly very embarrassing creatures."

Wake Up

15th June 2008, 19:15

I must say that I find your initial question's worrying as it seems you have been taught what is essentially a load of scare-mongering bullshit about the left.

You should be commended for coming here to find out the truth rather than just accept what you are told. If only more people did that...

Bud Struggle

15th June 2008, 22:17

Do you not think the fact that all the most revolutionary working class events have been carried out by people with no knowledge of marxism or any associated ideologies suggests that the desire for communism-as in, statelessness, classlessness, voluntary association-suggests that there's something innate in the human psyche that desires to live like this? After all, every single millenarian movement throughout history has been essentially communist flavour, condemning inequality and even property itself.

I'm really serious about this, I want to hear your response.

Certainly. Good question, too.

And yea, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that there is a inner desire in the heart of man for a stateless classless society. It could take many forms--from the Paris Commune all the way to small town Norman Rockwell America. I'm up for it personally.

I just don't think in the overall scheme of things its really workable. The world, for whatever reason, is headed in the opposite direction.

And here's my big problem with Marx: he's wrong when he says that economic issues are root of all unhappiness and instability in the world. Once people have enough to eat and some nice stuff, they are happy enough--that's why you Communists have such a tough time comvincing people that they are proletarian instead of middle class--they don't really believe it. And even if you could convince them--they don't really care.

The thing that makes people really excited and unhappy and troubled are the same things that people have been fighting about for the last 10,000 years--ethnicity and religion. A couple of things Marx dismissed pretty casually.

The ENTIRE Middle East crisis is and always about Ethnicity and religion, so was Bosnia, so was all the killings in Africa. Communism took the spotlight away from these thing for a whiloe--but now that Communism is back--the ethnic and religious fights are back.

If you get rid of those two problems--you have a peaceful world. Otherwise the fights just keep getting bigger and bigger.

Bud Struggle

15th June 2008, 22:50

'I personally am a slave owner/feudal aristocrat/soviet burocrat etc etc. It works just fine'
Lets play spot the falacy.

I was just saying that Capitalism is what 'IS" in this world as far as economic systems go. Even "Communist" countries like China are not too slowly being converted to the Capitalist way of life. Either they fall hard like the SU or softly like China and Vietnam--but they fall to Capitalism.

What exactly do you mean when you say that what you created 'works', and what socialists created didnt? Course the USSR was 'state-capitalist' 'betrayed the revolution' etc etc - but if we are taling about economic productivity it worked brilliantly, particularly in the first half of its existence.

Oh, it worked for a while, but it fell apart in the end. I guess the problem with Marxism is that it doesn't remain for long. It starts out with a bang and dies with a whimper. I think Communism as an economic theory is dead--BUT, and here's the good news, it does have some good points that can be used for the betterment of all people in the world.

From the world banks stats:
‘Eastern European per capita gross domestic product compared to that of the O.E.C.D. (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is composed of the rich Western countries) declined from 64 to 57 percent between 1830 and 1913, then rose to 65 percent by 1950; declined to 63 percent by 1973; then fell to 56 percent by 1989. The overall growth rate from 1913 to 1950 was higher for Eastern Europe than for the O.E.C.D. countries (1.4 percent versus 1.1 percent), and higher from 1950 to 1989 for the O.E.C.D. countries than for Eastern Europe (2.3 percent versus 2.0 percent). The Bank's statistics indicate that Eastern Europe's per capita gross domestic product was 15.7 percent higher than Latin America's in 1913, but 77.6 percent higher by 1989. Furthermore, none of these figures take into account wealth distribution, which was far more skewed in both the O.E.C.D. countries and Latin America than in Eastern Europe.’

Yet if it was so good--why did it disappear? Because it wasn't just all about economics--it was about politics, too. And the politics of the SU and the Iron Curtain countries towards their own people was terrible. There was palpable terror in the streets...you didn't know when the KGB was going to find you doing something wrong.

In the end people weren't happy under Communism.

Socialist revolutions, even where they have been defeated by counterevolution wraped in a red flag have in almost every case improved the life of the people. They took third world countries and made them second world. When market-capitalism was restored, they went back to the third world.

But Communist countries were OPPRESSIVE. The problem with Marxism is that it has to be followed and practiced by EVERYONE. In America (I don't know where you are) you can walk around being a Fascist or a Communist or an Anarchist--nobody cares. You can be a Catholic or an Athiest or a Devil worshiper--no one cares. They do care what you believe in Communist societies.

People are unhappy with that much control.

Actual socialism, such as that practiced in the spansih revolution, worked fantastically.

Weren't the anarchists killed by the Communists? Yes indeed, such thing can work for a moment or two in a far away region where everyone is of the same ethnicity and belief system. But not in the long run.

But I do give them credit for a nice try.

So you dont think there exist groups with shared interests in modern society? Or that thinking of society in terms of such groups could produce a useful model?

Shared interest groups are great--"classes" of society based on an 1850 model, maybe not. Economic classes just don't proplerly reflect the work or social envorment of today's society. That's why people don't classify themselves according to Marx's theories. Economic classifications are just an outdated idea.

The third reich?

Got me there! :)

Pol Pot was a complete goon, but many of the deaths attributed to him were infact the result of american bombing (more bombs were dropped on cambodia during the indochina conflict than on germany and japan combined in WWII - according to recieved history, they and their after effects didnt kill anyone).
I can come up with a laundry list of capitalist regimes and american client states worse than either of those. More pertinent however is the much larger number of market capitalist evil regimes than state capitalist ones. For any figure for the crimes of 'communism' (properly 'state capitalism') it would be a simple matter, using the same methodology, to come up with one several orders of magnitude higher for market captialism.

Well to be honest, Pol Pot wasn't a Communist--he was a feudal lord with a smattering of Marxist ideas. He is no different (though more brutal than most) than lots of other feudal war lords that take over nondiscript countries and soak them dry. Sometimes they are "Communist" sometimes they are "Capitalist" but those are just the trappings--they are dicataors.

I don't agree that communism is hard to learn about. At least not the branches of it that make sense.

Now that would make a GREAT sig line. :)

trivas7

15th June 2008, 23:05

Certainly. Good question, too.

And yea, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that there is a inner desire in the heart of man for a stateless classless society. It could take many forms--from the Paris Commune all the way to small town Norman Rockwell America. I'm up for it personally.

You are misinformed. Norman Rockwell hated Reds.

I just don't think in the overall scheme of things its really workable. The world, for whatever reason, is headed in the opposite direction.

It's to barbarism, then.

And here's my big problem with Marx: he's wrong when he says that economic issues are root of all unhappiness and instability in the world.

Marx never said that.

Once people have enough to eat and some nice stuff, they are happy enough--that's why you Communists have such a tough time comvincing people that they are proletarian instead of middle class--they don't really believe it. And even if you could convince them--they don't really care.

They will care when they see their grandchildren eating their own abortions to survive.

Bud Struggle

15th June 2008, 23:11

You are misinformed. Norman Rockwell hated Reds.

You miss the point--you don't have to be Red to believe in a government free, everyone equal, free association society. That is the essence of what American Society is (or at least was) all about.

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th June 2008, 23:15

That is the essence of what American Society is (or at least was) all about.

Please point out one period in American history when this was true.

Bud Struggle

15th June 2008, 23:30

Please point out one period in American history when this was true.

http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons/rockwell/005.jpg

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th June 2008, 23:33

http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons/rockwell/005.jpg

what a load of tossers. ( they all look like they are reciveing head)

Please post a time peroid so i can then post a decent source which makes me look clever which proves you wrong.

( Will post more tommrow but now im going for a wank and then sleep)

Wake Up

16th June 2008, 00:16

http://www.areaofdesign.com/americanicons/rockwell/005.jpg
Is that a picture of a thanksgiving meal?

You know, thanksgiving. The festival to celebrate how the Indians bailed out the settlers before being systematically wiped out.
Classic capitalism.

Bud Struggle

16th June 2008, 00:26

Is that a picture of a thanksgiving meal?

You know, thanksgiving. The festival to celebrate how the Indians bailed out the settlers before being systematically wiped out.
Classic capitalism.

There are indeed winners and losers in this world. That's just simply the way the world works. Personally, I rather enjoy winning--but to each his own. For you to think it ever can or ever will be any different no matter who controls the future--is just silly.

But believe what you wish. :)

Killfacer

16th June 2008, 01:15

i dont think brushing over the massacre of the indians by saying "thats the way of the world" is that great really.

Axel1917

16th June 2008, 01:27

First of all, I am going to warn you that Marxism takes a good deal of time to study. In fact, I think it would be easier for me to post links to works and FAQ's than to spend large amounts of time constructing a post (I rarely have time for such things these days!).

I would recommend seeing:

http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/129/63/

http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

A lot of lies have been spread about the Bolsheviks and the October Revolution. I would recommend reading Ted Grant's book (or at least some initial parts of it), Russia: From Revolution to Counter-revolution at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook-8.htm

Bud Struggle

16th June 2008, 01:28

i dont think brushing over the massacre of the indians by saying "thats the way of the world" is that great really.

It's not an ethical point--it's a factual one. Look, England killed tons of people when it conquered the world. When weak societies come into contact with stronger ones, they either bend or die. It's the survival of the fittest.

It's how nature works. We'd all like to see the lion lie down with the lamb--but it only happens in the Bible. Nowadays we can mitigate things a bit--but not much.

It's how business works, too--it's a direct copy of how things work in the real world. The stronger or better or smarter company kills off the weaker company. And that's one of the main strenths of Capitalism--it mimics the real world.

Killfacer

16th June 2008, 01:33

Bud Struggle

16th June 2008, 03:37

but just because its "the way of the world" it doesnt mean that
a. It has to be the way of the world
b. You have to sound pragmatic but come across brutal in your strange dismissal of the wiping out of nearly an entire race of human beings.

Well it kind of too late. Sorry for sounding brutal that wasn't my intention--personally I certainly wish it could have been done another way. Thwe American Indians had an interesting and brilliant culture. But what's been done is something that had been going on since history began. That's human nature.

That's who we human beings are.

RGacky3

16th June 2008, 06:31

It's not an ethical point--it's a factual one. Look, England killed tons of people when it conquered the world. When weak societies come into contact with stronger ones, they either bend or die. It's the survival of the fittest.

It's how nature works. We'd all like to see the lion lie down with the lamb--but it only happens in the Bible. Nowadays we can mitigate things a bit--but not much.

It's how business works, too--it's a direct copy of how things work in the real world. The stronger or better or smarter company kills off the weaker company. And that's one of the main strenths of Capitalism--it mimics the real world.

Coming from a guy that calls himself a Christian that sounds very strange, just accepting what you call human nature, which in this case is pure genoice, Europeans murdering en mass Indians, and destroying their societies and replacing them with one ethically much much inferoir. (many Indian tribes were propertyless and un-authoritarian, look what replaced them.)

Capitalism does'nt mimic the real world, it creates the real world. In North America before europeans the concept of property was foreign to the Indians, so was the concept of a 'state', Europeans took their backward systems and destroyed the Indians. If your going to use that excuse, oh its just the way humans are, we can say the same for hitler, stalin, pol pot, Franco, all of them, hell Bin Laden as well (actually I'd say his is example is more realistc, he's lashing back at an oppressor, not oppressing, which is closer to human nature.)

The Indian genocide in America was just as bad, if not worse than Hitlers and Stlains, maybe worse because it went on for much longer and involved more people.

Oppression and Genocide are not human nature, they are the result of systems that encourage that, they are the result of systems where most, if not all of the power rests in a few hands, any system like that will give off rotten fruits, its not, just the way it is.

Imagen what Jesus would think had you told him that.

Plagueround

16th June 2008, 08:59

It's how business works, too--it's a direct copy of how things work in the real world. The stronger or better or smarter company kills off the weaker company. And that's one of the main strenths of Capitalism--it mimics the real world.

In that case, capitalism is a bloated rotting creature eating itself to stay alive. Whether you think communism is the answer or not, capitalism in it's current form is not sustainable and lasting. I like you Tom, but it's a bit scary to see people assume they'll always be on top.

Killfacer

16th June 2008, 11:14

Tomk, (i apologise for having to use this example as it is used rather alot) would you dismiss the holocaust as human nature?

Bud Struggle

16th June 2008, 12:48

Yes and no. I think that sort of evil is in human hearts. I think any sort of genocide could be averted by reason and common sense, but I think such tthings are endemic to the human situation. You don't have to go back to the Halocaust--just look at Rwanda a couple of years ago and Bosnia--right there in Europe, and what's happening now in Darfur. You would have have think we learned our lesson, but we haven't and never will.

As for a Christian attitude towards all of this--that is the Christian attitude--mankind if fallen and evil and only God could save us from ourselves.

I like you Tom, but it's a bit scary to see people assume they'll always be on top.

Thanks, but what fun would this place be if I agreed with you on everything. :) My personal beliefs are a bit less severe than what I posted above--but if you look at the world in real terms, you can't avoid seeing there is a distinct flaw in human nature. I don't see the flaw originating our systems, after all they just mimic us.

The flaw is in us. And if you see the world that way you can come to either one of two conclusions--either we are all lost or we can only be savid by something outside ourselves (God). And that's why I am a Christian.

Killfacer

16th June 2008, 13:33

I both agree and disagree with you, i agree that there is a flaw in the human condition which makes us open to vile acts. But i disagree that nothing can be done to stop it.

so your christian because you think humans are a hopeless lost cause?

Bud Struggle

16th June 2008, 13:40

so your christian because you think humans are a hopeless lost cause?

Well not the only reason--but one of the big ones. I do work (charity) in prisons with all sorts of convicts and I see what's in these guys, I also work (or did work,) with finance guys on Wall Street and saw what drives those guys, too. I just see people with just drives, nice people in a lot of respects, but motivated in ways to do things that are just
incomprehensible to me.

The older I get the less I understand the human condition.

Killfacer

16th June 2008, 13:47

your a bit of a pessimist arent you? grim veiw of life.

Bud Struggle

16th June 2008, 13:57

your a bit of a pessimist arent you? grim veiw of life.

Not in the least. It's only from what I've seen, but I believe in "that other think" which changes all that around and makes me a rather jovial person--if I do say so myself. :)

Killfacer

16th June 2008, 14:02

well im glad your not about to hurl yourself off a bridge.

So do you think things such as the holocaust are guarenteed to happen for the rest of humanity's time on the earth?

TheDevil'sApprentice

16th June 2008, 18:51

I was just saying that Capitalism is what 'IS" in this world as far as economic systems go.
And I was saying that slave states and feudalism were once what was in the world as far as economic systems go. Not any more.

Oh, it worked for a while, but it fell apart in the end.
And how many times did democracy fall appart before it finally became dominant in the west? Think the french revolution.

But Communist countries were OPPRESSIVE.
As they were before their revolutions. Take any opressive element of the USSR, the secret police, the gulags, whatever - it was based on the same thing under the tzar. Of coruse this was very bad, but people didnt loose their freedom in the revolution - they had never had it. They dont have it now either. So whilst it was shitty, the USSR did massively improve things.

In America (I don't know where you are) you can walk around being a Fascist or a Communist or an Anarchist--nobody cares. You can be a Catholic or an Athiest or a Devil worshiper--no one cares. They do care what you believe in Communist societies.
Well actually they have cared what people think throughout most of american history. For instance, the key organisers of the IWW were given 20 year sentences on faked evidence for being a radical trade union, the FBI murdered black panther organisers gestapo style etc etc. Now we have 'hate speech' and guantanamo bay. I take your point that its the exception, not the norm.

Caring what people think has never been an essential part of communism - it happened where capitalism reaserted itself under a red flag, and caring what people think had been the norm beforehand. Under actual communism (spain, free ukraine) people didnt care what you thought.

Weren't the anarchists killed by the Communists? Yes indeed, such thing can work for a moment or two in a far away region where everyone is of the same ethnicity and belief system. But not in the long run.
I'd like to see your evaluation of what exactly caused it 'not to work'. As I see it, they were fighting an unwinable war against fascism - the fascists armed by the axis, the republic blocaded by the west. The system, and freedom with in it proved itself extreemely robust - far more so than capitalist democracy. The same happened in Ukraine 1917-21.

Shared interest groups are great--"classes" of society based on an 1850 model, maybe not. Economic classes just don't proplerly reflect the work or social envorment of today's society. That's why people don't classify themselves according to Marx's theories. Economic classifications are just an outdated idea.
I'm an anarchist, I dont use marx theory of class - its a bit silly. However, the struggle between the working and rulling class remains IMO the key dynamic in society. And class has never been about labeling individuals - its about producing a useful model of wider society.

Bud Struggle

16th June 2008, 20:25

And I was saying that slave states and feudalism were once what was in the world as far as economic systems go. Not any more.

So was Communism--not anymore.

And how many times did democracy fall appart before it finally became dominant in the west? Think the french revolution.

A lot of times--and in the best of times. Anarchy--not so much.

As they were before their revolutions. Take any opressive element of the USSR, the secret police, the gulags, whatever - it was based on the same thing under the tzar. Of coruse this was very bad, but people didnt loose their freedom in the revolution - they had never had it. They dont have it now either. So whilst it was shitty, the USSR did massively improve things. The Tsars rarley killed people. There were very few executions under the Tsars--lots of people were killed by the Communists.

But in the end--the point of Communism isn't to do the same old thing with community ownership of the means of production. If that's the case: why bother? As far as "people not loosing their freedom in the revolution - they never had it" that's the same excuse Vladimer Posner gave for Putin's repressive regime.

The same old same old.

Well actually they have cared what people think throughout most of american history. For instance, the key organisers of the IWW were given 20 year sentences on faked evidence for being a radical trade union, the FBI murdered black panther organisers gestapo style etc etc. Now we have 'hate speech' and guantanamo bay. I take your point that its the exception, not the norm.

Well I hink hate speech should be allowed--people should be allowd to say anything "political" and not be "punished." While I will disagree with 99% (most likely 100%) of it--I believe that when people can say whatever they want in public they are much less dangerous than when they go into hiding. Stormfront is a much better place for all these nutjobs to express themselves rather than bombing innocent people. And while the FBI wasn't always the best and America wasn't alway fair to union organizers--it's a far cry from the in your face intrusion of the KGB into the daily lives of Russians. They lived with a REAL terror of what they could say and what they couldn't. We don't have that trouble.

Caring what people think has never been an essential part of communism - it happened where capitalism reaserted itself under a red flag, and caring what people think had been the norm beforehand. Under actual communism (spain, free ukraine) people didnt care what you thought.

Agreed in places like Spain--things were easier, but they aren't in N. Korea or Cuba, or the SU in its day. In the last two (which I have visited,) there was a subtle "second language" that people spoke when speaking of the government. All part of he Ministry of Fear. We just don't have that problem in Western Capitalistic Democracies.

I'd like to see your evaluation of what exactly caused it 'not to work'. As I see it, they were fighting an unwinable war against fascism - the fascists armed by the axis, the republic blocaded by the west. The system, and freedom with in it proved itself extreemely robust - far more so than capitalist democracy. The same happened in Ukraine 1917-21.

I'm no expert here either. Maybe someone else could chime in.

I'm an anarchist, I dont use marx theory of class - its a bit silly. However, the struggle between the working and rulling class remains IMO the key dynamic in society. And class has never been about labeling individuals - its about producing a useful model of wider society.

I see that part about the model of a wider society--but as long as here is an osmosis between the wider class structures--I don't see much of a problem. The poor ('twas me) could become rich (I do OK) and the rich can become poor. That's what keeps things fair. (Well pretty fair.)