The Infamous Dialectic - Was Marx a fucking idiot or what?

[Stormin Norman]

Marx spoke of a dialectic, a procession of contradictions that all culminated to a point. A thesis or idea would generate testing under differing conditions. The old view would give way to a new view, the antithesis, which would become the new thesis. This process would end at what Marx called communism. He claimed that when true communism was achieved, the new utopia would be too perfect for any contention to exist any longer. Everyone would reach eternal bliss and live happily ever after. For years the subhuman filth on the left has argued over this assumption of Marx's. Were do you guys stand? Does the dialectic end with the emergence of communism? Or was Marx offering nothing more than the same kind of promise that he claimed to hate, a religion that had to be taken on faith alone?

And you thought you weren't religious. Ha, what a joke.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 12:12 am on Oct. 27, 2002)

[MaxB]

Marx wasn't an idiot. He was an imbecile.
Can you imagine somebody come up with such an idea as Communism (Marx's word for Socialism) and believe it would work. Yeah, yeah, maybe he was an idiot too.
The Leftists keep on redifining themselves after each failure and now they tell you that Socialism isn't Communism. They are so confused themselves that they don't know which end is up.

[James]

"all communists are socialists
but not all socialists are communists"


although kamo will disagree - but hes a tosser

[Smoking Frog II]

So basically what ya saying is that the Soviet Union [under communism] didn't work. Okay. Would you stupid hipposhits like to know why?

THE COLD WAR.

The reason that communism was dispanded in Russia was because of CAPITALISM. Capitalism brought communism to a standstill. Thje Soviets were threatened by the atomic bomb and was natural that they should get their own for defence. The propaganda of the "Domino Theory" with a bowling poster, skittles titled: Vietnam, China, Cambodia etc. Who are the West europeans gonna trust? The soviet pigs who kill people with umbrellas and send spies? or perhaps the capitalists who favoured fortunes over friends

[who incidently had spies but how come no one knew that?]

But now, the Domino theory has turned against the US.
The bowling bowl says "Land of the free"
while the skittles are labled: Turkey and Afganistan and Iraq and the rest of the middle east. The tides have turned, senior norman.

Also, I would like to point out that at the start of the last century, Russia was a poor, agricultural country with a corrupt government under a Tzar. Then communism took over, in 1918. So, in under 50 years from that point onwards, How com the siviet Union were contesting the Amercans in a space race? I'll tell you why you stupid cappie bastards who are so extreme in believing money=power, when in fact money=everyone thinks yu're a miser because you buy mansion with your stinking dollars and buy shares to make you even richer.
I'll tell you why the Societ Union [more than] caught up [because they got a man an a woman into space first.

So I don't wanna hear you shit any longer. Hemp?

[Smoking Frog II]

Don't leave me hangin' now, cappies. That's what ya did with everyone else.

[peaccenicked]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 12:08 pm on Oct. 26, 2002
Marx spoke of a dialectic, a procession of contradictions that all culminated to a point. A thesis or idea would generate testing under differing conditions. The old view would give way to a new view, the antithesis, which would become the new thesis. This process would end at what Marx called communism. He claimed that when true communism was achieved, the new utopia would be too perfect for any contention to exist any longer. Everyone would reach eternal bliss and live happily ever after. For years the subhuman filth on the left has argued over this assumption of Marx's. Were do you guys stand? Does the dialectic end with the emergence of communism? Or was Marx offering nothing more than the same kind of promise that he claimed to hate, a religion that had to be taken on faith alone?

And you thought you weren't religious. Ha, what a joke.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 12:12 am on Oct. 27, 2002)

The dialetic as such does not end with communism.
It is a way of thinking. The main conclusion is that all arguments can be refined, developed, enriched, deepened and expanded.
What is utopian is the argument that capitalism is the end result of human history. That is truly dogmatic, if thats what you mean by religious.
Marx demonstrated theoretically the end of capitalism.
It has not happened yet for sure and the experience of
stalinism has held back socialism. However the practice of stalinism has as much chance as killing off socialism as the practice of the Spanish Inquisition has of killing off Christianity.
SN has not the slightest clue what he his talking about.
As usual.Suprise. Suprise! All he can do is repeat unresearched lies about socialism and then try to convince socialists that these lies are true. What a moron. As if we have not heard them all before.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from MaxB on 6:44 pm on Oct. 26, 2002
Marx wasn't an idiot. He was an imbecile.
Can you imagine somebody come up with such an idea as Communism (Marx's word for Socialism) and believe it would work. Yeah, yeah, maybe he was an idiot too.
The Leftists keep on redifining themselves after each failure and now they tell you that Socialism isn't Communism. They are so confused themselves that they don't know which end is up.


Maybe your idiotic ass should fuckin research socialism before you open your goddamn mouth

damn you spout words but all you do is embaress your self

atleast marx pndered shit

you on the other hand bite other people's dicks and agree whenever Norman or CI speaks

you let tehm come up with shit then be like "yeah exactley"

You don't even know what teh fuck socialism is jackass

[Mazdak]

Smoking Frog, you said the USSR was under communism? Oh boy..... Must i repeat myself, the Soviet Union was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. SOCIALIST

S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-T

Thank you.

Humanity will never be perfect, but through communism we can get pretty damned close.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 2:43 am on Oct. 27, 2002
Smoking Frog, you said the USSR was under communism? Oh boy..... Must i repeat myself, the Soviet Union was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. SOCIALIST

S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-T

Thank you.

Humanity will never be perfect, but through communism we can get pretty damned close.

They had communism in their anthem they were communist


Communism is a form of Socialism

they can be both

Since communists are socialists

that means they can be socialists also

that doesn't mean all socialist are communiss though (thats for maxb)

[IHP]

MaxB you're just a 'yes' man.

Of course communism couldn't be achieved by faith alone. It requires a lot of hard work, and people working together for mutual gain. Having faith in the ideology helps this process. Faith in an ideology and faith in some almighy invisible friend are completely different.

--IHP

[Mazdak]

Communism a form of socialism??

Of course they would put it in their anthem. Communism is the GOAL, but they were using socialism to achieve it. How can you deny that.

Communism is the end product, the state at its peak. No country ever claimed to be socialist. They simply used "communism" in their anthems and such because that was what they were striving for.

i can't believe we are actually debating this.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 3:12 am on Oct. 27, 2002
Communism a form of socialism??

Of course they would put it in their anthem. Communism is the GOAL, but they were using socialism to achieve it. How can you deny that.

Communism is the end product, the state at its peak. No country ever claimed to be socialist. They simply used "communism" in their anthems and such because that was what they were striving for.

i can't believe we are actually debating this.


They were communists because their was no political freedom communism is the only form of socialism without political freedom


socialist yes, communist yes

it is a form of socialism that envolves violence

If it were socialist private enterprise would be allowed only limited

this wasn't allowed unitl the eighties

[Lardlad95]

and the only reason we are debating this is because I'm sick of being called a fuckin pink commie because people like you keep identifying the Soviet Union with socialists

I want to make it clear there is a difference between communism and socialism

[Stormin Norman]

About as much difference as a frog and a toad have.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 4:06 am on Oct. 27, 2002
About as much difference as a frog and a toad have.


by the same token, about as much difference as a white person and the grand high wizard of the KKK

of course we know all white people aren't KK members

and we all know all Socialsits aren't communists

[peaccenicked]

Another moronic lie.From SN

[peaccenicked]

Another moronic lie.From SN

[Stormin Norman]

Are you going to make me get my dictionary out again and prove you wrong or are you willing to accept that both theories advocate the collective ownership of the means of production. Anyway, gotta go to a Halloween Party and look at some fresh meat. How are you guys going to celebrate tonight, by beating off to pictures of Che?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 4:17 pm on Oct. 27, 2002)

[IHP]

maybe

[Smoking Frog II]

Well Mr Mazdak who knows everything, do you think that Russia under MR STALIN was socilaist? Of course not. At that point, it was:

C O M M U N I S T which spells communist.

I agree that before and after stalin the country was socialist, BUT I was referring to the early cold war

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 4:16 am on Oct. 27, 2002
Are you going to make me get my dictionary out again and prove you wrong or are you willing to accept that both theories advocate the collective ownership of the means of production. Anyway, gotta go to a Halloween Party and look at some fresh meat. How are you guys going to celebrate tonight, by beating off to pictures of Che?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 4:17 pm on Oct. 27, 2002)



And Democratic Socialist allow for some free enterprise

Capitalism allows for free enterprise

does that make you a Democratic Socialist?

Does that make me a Cappie?

didn't think so

Also unlike you, I don't love the cock

so no I wont be beating off to che...I'll be beating off to pictures of black and asian women...peace

[James]

so you now think that stalin and the "evil" soviets - wern't socialists?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from James on 12:46 pm on Oct. 27, 2002
so you now think that stalin and the "evil" soviets - wern't socialists?

No I think they were communists

which by default makes them socialist

that doesn't however mean that all socialists are communists

and teh more you people do this the more MAXB is going to post bullshit saying how socialists are communists

I'm a socialist and I'm not a communist

and I want to get this through to his dumbass

[James]

ok

i

get

the

point

.

You

don't

need

to

go

on

though.

I

think

they

may

be

winding

you

up

...

[Mazdak]

Quote: from Smoking Frog II on 10:39 am on Oct. 27, 2002
Well Mr Mazdak who knows everything, do you think that Russia under MR STALIN was socilaist? Of course not. At that point, it was:

C O M M U N I S T which spells communist.

I agree that before and after stalin the country was socialist, BUT I was referring to the early cold war


Yes. It was. He was using authoritarian socialism to implement his marxist ideas.

And lardlad, communism is the goddamned goal. If communism had been established in the USSR, it would not have fallen.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 2:51 pm on Oct. 27, 2002

Quote: from Smoking Frog II on 10:39 am on Oct. 27, 2002
Well Mr Mazdak who knows everything, do you think that Russia under MR STALIN was socilaist? Of course not. At that point, it was:

C O M M U N I S T which spells communist.

I agree that before and after stalin the country was socialist, BUT I was referring to the early cold war


Yes. It was. He was using authoritarian socialism to implement his marxist ideas.

And lardlad, communism is the goddamned goal. If communism had been established in the USSR, it would not have fallen.


Communism isn't my goal and I'm socialist

also whos to say it oculdn't have fallen?

Why wouldn't it have fallen if it was truly communist

[honest intellectual]

Stormin moron, your post doesn't make any sense. Not even gramatically.

"A thesis or idea would generate testing under differing conditions."

Wha? 'Generate testing'?

"For years the subhuman filth on the left has argued over this assumption of Marx's."
Argued over what, exactly?

"Or was Marx offering nothing more than the same kind of promise that he claimed to hate, a religion that had to be taken on faith alone?

And you thought you weren't religious. Ha, what a joke."
This is my favourite bit, coz you invent a belief supposedly held by leftists, then you laugh at the belief you just invented.

[komsomol]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 12:49 pm on Oct. 27, 2002

I'm a socialist and I'm not a communist

and I want to get this through to his dumbass


Uhuh, I think he(Mazdak?) realizes that you aren't Communist. Mazdak knows well the differences between Communism and Socialism. In Marxian theory, Socialism occurs when the Proletariat gains power in the country of Revolution, only when the state fully withers away does Communism exist. So we could say that the Soviet Union was Communist, because they were moving towards Communism (allegedly) but it was a Socialist system, Communism did not exist.

[Mazdak]

EXACTLY moloch. Finally someone proved me right.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 12:10 am on Oct. 28, 2002
EXACTLY moloch. Finally someone proved me right.


Something you are incapable of doing on your own

second THere was no free enterprise what soever until the eighties

there was no political freedom until the early nineties


So since we can't agree we will reffer to it from hence forth as Soviet Socialism



also you guys have yet to describe what you believe is totally communism

[Mazdak]

No.... not really. I was about to make the same response when i saw molochs. So let me get this straight, if it comes out of my mouth it is automatically wrong, unless someone else says it is right? You need to be less narrowminded pal.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Mazdak on 12:20 am on Oct. 28, 2002
No.... not really. I was about to make the same response when i saw molochs. So let me get this straight, if it comes out of my mouth it is automatically wrong, unless someone else says it is right? You need to be less narrowminded pal.

First off Mazdak..I may rib you and shit, but you got to know you still my boy and probably one of my favorite people here


Second I still think it's bullshit

i don't agree with what Moloch said

but this is fruitless

also I only said you were in capable because you said finally someone proved you right

[El Che]

Ignorance is arrogant.

[Stormin Norman]

Honest Intellectual,

I think it's funny that you would call yourself an intellectual when you are too stupid to understand a simple question. I went back and reread the original post and it makes perfect sense to anyone with any knowledge of Marxist theory. If you are not aware of this most basic of Marxist theory, then I suggest you ask one of your subhuman friends. The paragraph that I wrote is simple. I will present it to you once again, in hopes that you will address the question this time.

Let's take it slow.

An emerging idea that defines a culture is subject to the test of time. It generates differences in viewpoints that sometimes prove the old theory to be obsolete. The new view then becomes the new thesis as the old one is put to rest. Marx's theory claims that when the state dissipates into nothingness, caused by proletarian rule, this procession of ideas will stop. This is a result of a perfect theory where nothing is left to debate and everyone is happy with their societal roles. Any objective scholar would be able to see what a complete farce this assumption represents.

It's sad that Moloch is the only one of you that understands this aspect of Marxist theory (the attainment of the perfect society caused by the end of the state). So now that I have explained it twice, will one of you answer the question. Does the dialectic end with communism? Is communism such a perfect system that it would go unchallenged by the philosophers of the day? Is communism the end of societal evolution? Do men reach equilibrium with one another and their surroundings when communism becomes reality? Do you understand the question? Do I need to clarify it in further detail?

You might want to change your name, dishonest intellectual. I guarantee I am at least 30 I.Q. points higher than you. Who are you calling a moron?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 11:34 pm on Oct. 28, 2002)

[James]

ahem

wasn't it recently proved that there is no such thing as an IQ, and that the tests are just bullshit?

Anyways, where did you find out your IQ stormy old mate?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:29 am on Oct. 28, 2002
Honest Intellectual,

I think it's funny that you would call yourself an intellectual when you are too stupid to understand a simple question. I went back and reread the original post and it makes perfect sense to anyone with any knowledge of Marxist theory. If you are not aware of this most basic of Marxist theory, then I suggest you ask one of your subhuman friends. The paragraph that I wrote is simple. I will present it to you once again, in hopes that you will address the question this time.

Let's take it slow.

An emerging idea that defines a culture is subject to the test of time. It generates differences in viewpoints that sometimes prove the old theory to be obsolete. The new view then becomes the new thesis as the old one is put to rest. Marx's theory claims that when the state dissipates into nothingness, caused by proletarian rule, this procession of ideas will stop. This is a result of a perfect theory where nothing is left to debate and everyone is happy with their societal roles. Any objective scholar would be able to see what a complete farce this assumption represents.

It's sad that Moloch is the only one of you that understands this aspect of Marxist theory (the attainment of the perfect society caused by the end of the state). So now that I have explained it twice, will one of you answer the question. Does the dialectic end with communism? Is communism such a perfect system that it would go unchallenged by the philosophers of the day? Is communism the end of societal evolution? Do men reach equilibrium with one another and their surroundings when communism becomes reality? Do you understand the question? Do I need to clarify it in further detail?

You might want to change your name, dishonest intellectual. I guarantee I am at least 30 I.Q. points higher than you. Who are you calling a moron?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 11:34 pm on Oct. 28, 2002)


No it wont end with communism which is why communism is such a bad system, it assumes that everyone will be happy under it, but will blind it's self to people's real needs and freedoms utimately destroying it's self

the dialectic will end with utopianism...which is ultimately impossible

this doesn't mean we can't do the best we can...ie Democratic Socialism

[vox]

Well then there now. Ain't this interestin'? SN thinks he's some sorta scholar!

Let me burst that bubble right quick:

"An emerging idea that defines a culture is subject to the test of time. It generates differences in viewpoints that sometimes prove the old theory to be obsolete. The new view then becomes the new thesis as the old one is put to rest."

SN presents this dogmatic bit of tripe as Marx's theory, but that just ain't so. The astute reader will see the problem in the very first line: "An emerging idea that defines a culture is subject to the test of time." See, SN places primacy on the Idea, showing himself to be an Idealist, whereas Marx and Engels rejected this Hegelian Idealism. Rather, for Marx the culture, or, more precisely, the society is defined not by some great Idea forced upon it from the outside but by the material forces of that society itself. SN then states that this "generates differences in viewpoints," but again, that's not what Marx said. The contradictions of the material relations of a society, not Idealist hocus-pocus, are the genesis of the antithesis.

SN takes a simplistic and dogmatic understanding of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, Idealizes it and then claims it's Marxian! It almost sounds like SN is arguing some sort of "metaphysical dialectics." Hee!

vox

[Stormin Norman]

I would have expected a better answer than that from you, Vox. Always disappointing me. I thought you were capable of so much more. Apparently all you can do is try to argue with me. I'm sorry, I did not get the conclusion that you jumped to. How did I reveal my idealism? When did I claim that Marx failed to tie the thesis with the material realm and the 'eternal class struggle'? How come every time I paraphrase Marx, or present you with his own words, you try to rationalize his theory or deny it all together? Why do you hate Stormin Norman so much?

[peaccenicked]

'eternal class struggle'. What are you talking about?

'Thesis tied to reality' What is the basis of this claim?
http://www.marxist.com/Economy/marx_was_right.html

You have done squat all with nearly 1000posts to convince or even set one doubt into motion that Marx was basically right.

Dont you get it? You are totally wasting your and our time.

[vox]

It's funny, isn't it? SN just got done making fun of someone for not understanding a simple post, but then he didn't understand mine.

As I said, in the very first line, by predicating the entire notion on the Idea, SN betrays an Idealistic attitude and thus enters, I think, into the realm of metaphysics rather than dialectics (and, indeed, SN doesn't even seem to know what dialects means and mistakenly uses the term when, in reality, he seems to be talking about the Materialist conception of history, though badly).

For SN, and anyone else, here's a snippet of the definition of dialectics given in the Encyclopedia of Marxism: "Dialectics is the method of reasoning which aims to understand things concretely in all their movement, change and interconnection, with their opposite and contradictory sides in unity."

SN asks, "When did I claim that Marx failed to tie the thesis with the material realm and the 'eternal class struggle'?"

Of course, I never said that he did. Rather, I said that he failed, not Marx, and I explained how I believe he failed (by replacing Materialism with Idealism--we are not arguing Hegel here).

A good example of the clear misunderstanding on SN's part can be seen by his use of the word "culture." His Idealism is twice removed, for first he gives primacy to the Idea and then he states that the Idea itself defines the culture! Of course, culture is created and limited by the material conditions of a society. SN seeks to replace the thing itself with a meme and then presents this as Marx's own theory.

He may plead ingorance all he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that his initial premise has nothing at all to do with Marx.

vox

[Dan Majerle]

Vox and peace, you guys really are champs!
Also SN, you bag us for chatting about Che on an internet forum when here you are, a non-Che admirer so therefore almost immediately we cannot establish a reason as to why you are here, and here constantly, 900+ posts about someone you hate! You seem to spend an awful lot of time on a board discussing a topic that you vehemently detest. Who is the lamo here? It is like me, somebody who has no interest in cars, bagging someone for reading the same car magazines that i do, when in fact i am the one that should be bagged for wasting unpleasurable moments of my life endulging in a horrible habit and hobby that i dislike yet incessently pursue.

[Stormin Norman]

Vox,

There is a difference between not comprehending a post and disagreeing with it all together. Don't assume that because I do not share your demented version of things, that I do not understand your sickness.

[vox]

Here we have one of SN's most disingenuous responses yet. It's blatantly obvious that SN has absolutely no idea of what he's talking about. He's been made a fool and can't accept it. This vulgar attempt to save face only adds to his humiliation.

vox

[Michael De Panama]

Jesus. I can't believe it's come to the Stalinist arguing that the USSR wasn't communist, and the democratic socialists arguing that it was. Communism is a system in which there is no social class and everyone is equal. There is no ruling class in a communist society. The USSR always had class divisions. Therefore, the USSR was authoritarian socialist, but not communist.

I'm a democratic socialist myself. I normally don't defend Mazdak and his minions, but he is absolutely right here.

[peaccenicked]

Marx uses the words 'socialism' and 'communism', interchangeably ie. He saw no difference. Lenin emphasises socialism when he speaks of transition bur he does not use it as the transitional form.
The first people to use Socialism as the transitional form were the Stalinists.
Lenin did not descibe the USSR as socialist. The word was not a description but an intention.
Lenin described The USSR as a workers and peasant State with gross bureaucratic distortions. That did not change after Lenin's death. It got worse. Power became concentrated in one man who overseen the destruction of the international communist movement.
The USSR was not socialist at all, by any Marxist, never mind Leninist standards.