Some questions

[Killfacer]

Heres just a series of questions i have about different political movements, there are alot of them so just answering a couple would be nice.

Disclaimer: These are not meant to be offensive/derogatory to anyone's beleifs so if you take it badly get a life and shut up

General
1. When the revolution does come, arent you all just going to blow each others heads off? Seriously, when it comes down to it, would you all be willing to work with each other? Or would you just kill each other off until one became the dominant force?
2. What is the point of labeling yourself a Menshevik or a more obscure branch of communism, when clearly post-russian revolution, there aint gonna be a populist menshevik uprising.
3. How does the applying of all that Hegel and Marx philosophical shit help a revolution? Because, and i admit my understanding is shaky at best, from the outside it looks like innane conjecture.
Anarcho-Capitalists
1. This is a serious question, why the hell does everyone else laugh at you and think your all stupid reactionaries?
2. Do you really think that, as a plainly small obscure political ideology, there is ever going to be an Anarcho-capitalist revolution?
Technocracy
1. Are people who want a technocracy called technocrats?
2. Isnt it just like waiting until the future when everything will be fine?
3. How are you going to change the image of "technocracy" because it sounds like a poor 80's Kraftwerk albumb (and i like KraftwerK)
Stalinists
1. You always seem a bit blood thirsty to me, any ideas why that is?
2. How can you realistically expect people to beleive that its "all tsarist lies"?
3. Most people think Stalin was a bloodthirsty dictator, i think his public perception is too much of an anchor around your necks, why dont you just befriend regular commies again?
Capitalists
1. How can you justify or even support a system which sytematically opresses millions?
2. Wouldnt it be worth a go? Imagine anarchism or somit worked? Could be nice for everyone involved!
Communists
1. Will you ever be able to get rid of the perception that communism will always lead to a blood thirsty dictatorship, and that all commies are in denial? Even distancing yourself from the USSR etc doesnt get rid of the bad smell

Any answers would be nice! Thanks! :)

i dont know how but if someone can could they rename the thread "questions"

[Robert]

Killfacer, you're in trouble if the only one here to answer you is me!:lol:

I hate smilies. But ...

"1. How can you justify or even support a system which sytematically opresses millions?"

You make it sound like all capitalists get together every morning and conspire to screw the working man or something. Capitalists want you to have money. The more the better.

If you simply mean the system is rigged so that the lucky, the smart, brave, the beautiful, the cunning, the born-rich, the intrepid and the energetic tend to advance materially while others regress, and too often into poverty, I concede the point. But that's life, not capitalism.

As far as oppression goes, you can't completely eliminate capitalism without force. Force is it's own form of oppression. If I'm willing to pay you more for your product or service than it cost you to produce it, that's between me and you, assuming we aren't dealing in nuclear missiles or child rape videos.

Most communists think of capitalists as Andrew Carnegie, who not only owned and controlled but monopolized means of production (and distribution). Not every small businessman is an Andrew Carnegie.

As far as the "millions," the point is conceded that governments oppress millions. We aren't allowed here to posit that North Korea is or China ever was communist, (too "statist" to qualify, as I understand it), so I guess that under the bent rules of revolutionary logic, you're exactly right: only capitalists oppress, and they oppress millions.

As for anarchy, I just don't see how you can eliminate money and commerce without law and law enforcement mechanisms. Then you have the simple human violence and fraud that will need stopping. Some here think all that will just vanish after the revolution. “A jealous, drunk husband will have no reason to beat his wife half to death under communism.” Pardon my laughter.

Laws and enforcement is what government is all about. I guess you could have neighborhood vigilantes or something instead of local police.

There are mechanisms for changing labor laws and even the constitution, in the USA at least. But we capitalists never hear the slightest suggestion that anyone will be empowered to challenge the communist system that rises from the ashes of revolution. Why is that?

[Bud Struggle]

Killfacer: EXCELEANTE!!! Freakin' Brilliant!!!:)

[Plagueround]

General Prepare your troops for a surface attack.

Sorry, that's from The Empire Strike Back. I've been watching too much Star Wars lately.

1. When the revolution does come, arent you all just going to blow each others heads off? Seriously, when it comes down to it, would you all be willing to work with each other? Or would you just kill each other off until one became the dominant force?Revleft won't be involved in the revolution...they will be online debating whether or not it's the real revolution, detailing point by point why it is or isn't. :scared:


2. What is the point of labeling yourself a Menshevik or a more obscure branch of communism, when clearly post-russian revolution, there aint gonna be a populist menshevik uprising. No point in conceding one's beliefs because they're less popular I suppose.


3. How does the applying of all that Hegel and Marx philosophical shit help a revolution? Because, and i admit my understanding is shaky at best, from the outside it looks like innane conjecture.Some people need a really in depth way to approach the situation. Some people are content in just saying "shit right now is fucked up." It's kind of like how some people like art films and others like sugary blockbusters. I like both.

[chimx]

General
1. When the revolution does come, arent you all just going to blow each others heads off? Seriously, when it comes down to it, would you all be willing to work with each other? Or would you just kill each other off until one became the dominant force?

No (Although I should say you seem stuck a little bit in revolutionary war time frame. Would a revolution in an industrial country really look like this today?)


2. What is the point of labeling yourself a Menshevik or a more obscure branch of communism, when clearly post-russian revolution, there aint gonna be a populist menshevik uprising.

Beats me. I label myself a marxist and/or materialist, nothing more.


3. How does the applying of all that Hegel and Marx philosophical shit help a revolution? Because, and i admit my understanding is shaky at best, from the outside it looks like innane conjecture.

I'm not big on Hegel, but Marx provides a wonderful framework for understanding human history. Communists apply this framework to understanding humanities future.


Anarcho-Capitalists
1. This is a serious question, why the hell does everyone else laugh at you and think your all stupid reactionaries?

Because it asks the market to determine political superstructure in a much more direct manner than what it currently is under a liberal democratic capitalist government. That is certainly bad as it minimizes government's autonomy from production relationships.


2. Do you really think that, as a plainly small obscure political ideology, there is ever going to be an Anarcho-capitalist revolution?

Lord, I hope not.


Technocracy
1. Are people who want a technocracy called technocrats?

Yes


2. Isnt it just like waiting until the future when everything will be fine?

Sometimes it does sound like that, yes. Perhaps they should be the ones calling themselves Mensheviks, like those in your above question. ;)


3. How are you going to change the image of "technocracy" because it sounds like a poor 80's Kraftwerk albumb (and i like KraftwerK)

I'll let a technocrat answer that


Stalinists
1. You always seem a bit blood thirsty to me, any ideas why that is?

I'll let a supporter of Stalin's government answer that


2. How can you realistically expect people to beleive that its "all tsarist lies"?

That's a good question, especially considering soviet archives have been largely opened and much of the "bourgeois media world" is open to peer-review. But I would add that history can be interpreted to a certain extent, to the point that I would venture to call it manipulative.


3. Most people think Stalin was a bloodthirsty dictator, i think his public perception is too much of an anchor around your necks, why dont you just befriend regular commies again?

I'll let a stalinist answer


Communists
1. Will you ever be able to get rid of the perception that communism will always lead to a blood thirsty dictatorship, and that all commies are in denial? Even distancing yourself from the USSR etc doesnt get rid of the bad smell

Possibly not, but Marxism is uninterested in these brief moments of ideological fervor. Marxists believe that production relationships will inevitably create conflict, and this conflict will come to a head out of necessity and develop into a future epoch of human production. I think that certain applications of socialism have undoubtedly hurt this from occurring, but we as Marxists believe that you can stop the advancement of human history with idealism.

[Dean]

General
1. When the revolution does come, arent you all just going to blow each others heads off? Seriously, when it comes down to it, would you all be willing to work with each other? Or would you just kill each other off until one became the dominant force?

I'm willing to work with anyone who has similar goals. The only people I am wary of are the hardcore authoritarian "Leninists," Technocrats and Primitivists. Thankfully, the mainstream is far more leftist that them in my opinion.



2. What is the point of labeling yourself a Menshevik or a more obscure branch of communism, when clearly post-russian revolution, there aint gonna be a populist menshevik uprising.

This is why I call myself a libertarian communist.


3. How does the applying of all that Hegel and Marx philosophical shit help a revolution? Because, and i admit my understanding is shaky at best, from the outside it looks like innane conjecture.
Marxism is an analysis of economic and social tendancies and dynamics. Conceivably, it is helpful to guide a revolution. Practically, it is useful as an argument for why communism is viable.


Communists
1. Will you ever be able to get rid of the perception that communism will always lead to a blood thirsty dictatorship, and that all commies are in denial? Even distancing yourself from the USSR etc doesnt get rid of the bad smell

I don't think this is accurate, even if it were it wouldn't mean much. It's like asking a capitalist to think and act the same way, but to change his self-image. How is that rational?

[Demogorgon]

Chimx answered largely the same as I would, so I will constrain myself to brief thoughts

General
1. When the revolution does come, arent you all just going to blow each others heads off? Seriously, when it comes down to it, would you all be willing to work with each other? Or would you just kill each other off until one became the dominant force?
I hope not. Ultimately a revolution has to come about through a wider movement than a bunch of sectarians more concerned with infighting anyway. I can work with almost anyone on the left. There are a few types of supposed "leftists" that I cannot work with, but you tend to only find them on the internet anyway. I am referring to ultra-authoritarians (of all stripes, even anarchists can fall into this trap sometimes. You see a handful of them here). Anyway modern revolution is deeply unlikely to take the form of civil war anyway.


2. What is the point of labeling yourself a Menshevik or a more obscure branch of communism, when clearly post-russian revolution, there aint gonna be a populist menshevik uprising. Christ knows

3. How does the applying of all that Hegel and Marx philosophical shit help a revolution? Because, and i admit my understanding is shaky at best, from the outside it looks like innane conjecture.The Hegalian stuff is crap and has nothing to do with revolution. Marx is excellent for understanding History and the Economy though.

Anarcho-Capitalists
1. This is a serious question, why the hell does everyone else laugh at you and think your all stupid reactionaries?
2. Do you really think that, as a plainly small obscure political ideology, there is ever going to be an Anarcho-capitalist revolution?Anarcho-Capitalism is an appalling ideology. Such a society would be amongst the cruellest in human history. Fortunately it is almost certainly impossible. I suspect that most of its adherants are simply subscribing to it to be contrary anyway.

Technocracy
1. Are people who want a technocracy called technocrats?
2. Isnt it just like waiting until the future when everything will be fine?
3. How are you going to change the image of "technocracy" because it sounds like a poor 80's Kraftwerk albumb (and i like KraftwerK)Don't get me started. I am absolutely at a loss to explain why people can hold to an ideology like this. It is a classic case of "x would be nice, so let's go for it". They forget that things have to be possible as well as desirable. Besides you will notice that many of the technocrats here actually think there will be no socialism without their science-fiction stuff. It is essentially Conservative in character. Fortunately it is pretty much non-existant outside of the internet

Stalinists
1. You always seem a bit blood thirsty to me, any ideas why that is?
2. How can you realistically expect people to beleive that its "all tsarist lies"?
3. Most people think Stalin was a bloodthirsty dictator, i think his public perception is too much of an anchor around your necks, why dont you just befriend regular commies again?I am not sure if Stalinists are the worst for being blood-thirsty. Nonetheless I am suspicious of them


Communists
1. Will you ever be able to get rid of the perception that communism will always lead to a blood thirsty dictatorship, and that all commies are in denial? Even distancing yourself from the USSR etc doesnt get rid of the bad smell

I don't know. I tend to prefer to call my ideology "Socialism" for this very reason.

[Red_or_Dead]

1. When the revolution does come, arent you all just going to blow each others heads off? Seriously, when it comes down to it, would you all be willing to work with each other? Or would you just kill each other off until one became the dominant force?


In this day and age I can hardly imagine two leftists with completley identical opinions on everything. So, we can only hope that we will be able to work together, without blowing our heads off.


2. What is the point of labeling yourself a Menshevik or a more obscure branch of communism, when clearly post-russian revolution, there aint gonna be a populist menshevik uprising.



No point whatsoever. I call myself a communist, and thats perfectly enough as far as Im concerned.

Whos to say that there wont be a menshevik or any other uprising?


3. How does the applying of all that Hegel and Marx philosophical shit help a revolution? Because, and i admit my understanding is shaky at best, from the outside it looks like innane conjecture.


It fits into the big picture. Marx, at least, not Hegel. It helps us understand society, especialy capitalist society, and how to change it.

Ill leave Anarcho cappies and Technocrats to answer their own.


1. You always seem a bit blood thirsty to me, any ideas why that is?
2. How can you realistically expect people to beleive that its "all tsarist lies"?
3. Most people think Stalin was a bloodthirsty dictator, i think his public perception is too much of an anchor around your necks, why dont you just befriend regular commies again?


1. They are
2. They cant
3. They wont


1. How can you justify or even support a system which sytematically opresses millions?

Ever listened to Ronald Reagan? Well, there you have it.


2. Wouldnt it be worth a go? Imagine anarchism or somit worked? Could be nice for everyone involved!

Because they would lose their priviliges that they hold in a capitalist soceity.


1. Will you ever be able to get rid of the perception that communism will always lead to a blood thirsty dictatorship, and that all commies are in denial? Even distancing yourself from the USSR etc doesnt get rid of the bad smell


No idea. I can only hope so.

[RGacky3]

1. When the revolution does come, arent you all just going to blow each others heads off? Seriously, when it comes down to it, would you all be willing to work with each other? Or would you just kill each other off until one became the dominant force?

As long as Lenininsts arn't in control, and its a genuine worker controlled revolution that should'nt be a problem.

Also the revolution is'nt an event, like the apocolypse, I see it as something on going, society being revolutionized slowly through a series of small revolutions, strikes, uprisings, autonomy, worker control, community control, things like that.


2. What is the point of labeling yourself a Menshevik or a more obscure branch of communism, when clearly post-russian revolution, there aint gonna be a populist menshevik uprising.

I agree I don't know hyw anyone labels them self a (some dude)ist, or still clings on to the russian revolution, as if it was the end all of socialism.

Also I don't think anyone calls themself a Menshevik.


3. How does the applying of all that Hegel and Marx philosophical shit help a revolution? Because, and i admit my understanding is shaky at best, from the outside it looks like innane conjecture.

Best I could say is it lays out some principles and food for thought, other than that, not much.


But that's life, not capitalism.

Capitalist property rights that deprive people, labor exploitation that steals, and market induced starvations arn't life, thats Capitalism.

[Robert]

Capitalist property rights that deprive people, labor exploitation that steals, and market induced starvations arn't life

Quicky quiz: Who have starved more people: Russian commies, Chinese commies, Cambodian commies, Korean commies, or American capitalists?

Answer: I don't know either, but for reasons different than those you'll posit.

[Bud Struggle]

If you simply mean the system is rigged so that the lucky, the smart, brave, the beautiful, the cunning, the born-rich, the intrepid and the energetic tend to advance materially while others regress, and too often into poverty, I concede the point. But that's life, not capitalism.


Indeed. That's why I don't give a damn about the Revolution. If it comes--great. Guys like you and me will make out just fine. I'm thinking of having my dacha with kind of oriental turrets--maybe on 10,000 acres or so.

What are your hopes for after the revolution, Robert? :lol:

[RGacky3]

Quicky quiz: Who have starved more people: Russian commies, Chinese commies, Cambodian commies, Korean commies, or American capitalists?

Answer: I don't know either, but for reasons different than those you'll posit.

I'd have to say American Capitalism, but that being said, all those examples are non that I or any other anarchist would back, ever.

[Robert]

I'd have to say American Capitalism

Yes, I imagine you would.

Tom, come the revolution, I will be purged. These guys have long memories and short fuses!

Assuming I survive the purge, I will end up living quietly and comfortably for a while, possibly as an interpreter or reporter in the People's Court.

For a while. Then, after things quiet down and society regresses into its old ways, in the manner of China, Chief Judge will invite me in to his chambers for tea. We'll talk, maybe play a little fingerstyle on our Martins ("hey, can you show me 'Blue Finger'? 'Sure, judge.' "), and I'll be promoted to judge.

Heh. I got a long memory, too.

[Bud Struggle]

Tom, come the revolution, I will be purged. These guys have long memories and short fuses!

Boulderdash!


Assuming I survive the purge, I will end up living quietly and comfortably for a while, possibly as an interpreter or reporter in the People's Court.

For a while. Then, after things quiet down and society regresses into its old ways, in the manner of China, Chief Judge will invite me in to his chambers for tea. We'll talk, maybe play a little fingerstyle on our Martins ("hey, can you show me 'Blue Finger'? 'Sure, judge.' "), and I'll be promoted to judge.

Heh. I got a long memory, too.

After the revolution people are going to have the same needs thay have now. They are going to have the same desires and wants--and just like now they will need someone to supply those things for them. Just because they will be "free" doesn't mean they come from nowhere.

And just like now they will need movers ans shakers to get things done. And that's where guys like you and me come in. They had guys like us in the old Soviet Union, there are guys like us in Communist China, no matter what the economic system there will always be guys like us to make things happen. And they always get treated pretty damn good.

And on the other hand you don't think people that aren't productive under Capitalism are all of a sudden going to be productive under Communism, do you? Economic systems change--people don't.

That's where we come in--and yea, our dacha's will be owned "by the people" but we'll live there and we won't let the peons anywhere near our places. All in the name of the people, of course. ;)

Let the Revolution come--we'll always do all right. :thumbup:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So if I understand you correctly, Robert, you support capitalism because you think society can never change in any meaningful way?

In that case, you could benefit from a closer study of history. True, all societies since the invention of agriculture have been class societies - I concede that point, as did Marx - but not every one of those societies had the same kind of ruling class. They were all rigged in the favour of someone or other, but they were not all rigged in favour of the same kinds of people.

Socialism is supposed to be a society rigged in favour of certain kinds of people too. The hardworking and the altruistic.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

They had guys like us in the old Soviet Union, there are guys like us in Communist China...
And that is why those experiments failed - because they did not effectively counter the lust for power and wealth that some people have. They expected human psychology to change too quickly, and of course it didn't.

They key to a successful socialist revolution is to understand that there will always be people like you, Tom, and to make damn sure that you never get your hands on power or wealth.

But you can still be of service to the revolution, in the same way a hacker can be of service to software developers: We come up with proposals for organizing socialist society, and you tell us how you would try to subvert it for your own ends. Then we fix the loopholes you point out.

[Bud Struggle]

And that is why those experiments failed - because they did not effectively counter the lust for power and wealth that some people have. They expected human psychology to change too quickly, and of course it didn't.

Excellent point.


They key to a successful socialist revolution is to understand that there will always be people like you, Tom, and to make damn sure that you never get your hands on power or wealth. That may be harder said than done. I'm coming acccross as the "brash Capitalist" here--but in a real life "selling situation" I would come across as something rather different; a man of the people always willing to help always willing to do the dirty jobs that no one else wants to do. And little by little people would trust me with this job and then that and sooner or later I become indespensible. And then it will be too late, the game will be over. (And yes, I would think of it as a game.)


you can still be of service to the revolution, in the same way a hacker can be of service to software developers: We come up with proposals for organizing socialist society, and you tell us how you would try to subvert it for your own ends. Then we fix the loopholes you point out. All I wish to do is serve the Revolution in any capacity--no matter how small or how menial. :hammersickle::star3::hammersickle:


;)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That may be harder said than done. I'm coming acccross as the "brash Capitalist" here--but in a real life "selling situation" I would come across as something rather different; a man of the people always willing to help always willing to do the dirty jobs that no one else wants to do. And little by little people would trust me with this job and then that and sooner or later I become indespensible. And then it will be too late, the game will be over. (And yes, I would think of it as a game.)
I am aware of that. I come from a former Eastern Bloc country, remember, so I know quite well the psychological profile and tactics of the people who destroyed the old system and restored capitalism.

It was quite amazing to see people who had been singing praises to Marxism for their entire lives and always talked and acted as impeccable Marxists suddenly become ruthless free market capitalists overnight. It showed something very important: Censoring speech doesn't make your enemies go away, it just makes them keep their mouths shut, which is actually bad for you because they're so much harder to detect.

I oppose any and all restrictions on free speech except in the most dire of circumstances, because I want to encourage my enemies to reveal themselves, not hide and infiltrate.

Of course, many will hide and infiltrate anyway. This is where my belief in an iron adherence to democracy and egalitarian distribution of wealth comes in. Just about the only good idea that liberals ever came up with was that of checks and balances - the idea that any government or administration will always attract ruthless, power-hungry people, and the only way to keep them in check is to create a system that forces them to spend most of their time fighting against each other. Some people hate it that politicians spend so much time on useless infighting and bureaucratic stuff. I love it. It means they have less time to think of ways of screwing us over. Keep 'em busy.

And, of course, one important aspect of "checks and balances" that capitalism ignores, but socialism will cover, is the distribution of wealth. More wealth means more power; the more egalitarian the distribution of wealth, the harder it becomes to bribe people or buy favours, and the greater the relative wealth and power of the masses as opposed to the ambitious few.

[Demogorgon]

That may be harder said than done. I'm coming acccross as the "brash Capitalist" here--but in a real life "selling situation" I would come across as something rather different; a man of the people always willing to help always willing to do the dirty jobs that no one else wants to do. And little by little people would trust me with this job and then that and sooner or later I become indespensible. And then it will be too late, the game will be over. (And yes, I would think of it as a game.)

Well plenty of that certainly went on in the Soviet Union and so on, but there was a reason why people were able to get away with it so readily, there was no mechanism for those below to remove those above when they proved corrupt. Under the new and improved version of Communism, officials will be recallable at any time so if you tried that trick, yes you might get into power, but if you then tried such bad behaviour you would quickly find yourself voted back out and you would have to start over again-this time with people more wary of you.

Really, it cannot be emphasised enough how important Democracy is. When people have direct and immediate control over positions of authority, these authorities have good reason to be on their best behaviour.

[Dean]

And that is why those experiments failed - because they did not effectively counter the lust for power and wealth that some people have. They expected human psychology to change too quickly, and of course it didn't.

They key to a successful socialist revolution is to understand that there will always be people like you, Tom, and to make damn sure that you never get your hands on power or wealth.

But you can still be of service to the revolution, in the same way a hacker can be of service to software developers: We come up with proposals for organizing socialist society, and you tell us how you would try to subvert it for your own ends. Then we fix the loopholes you point out.

I don't see how TomK wouldn't fit in a communist society. Unless he tried to get control of the means of production for his own ends, I think he would just be a regular guy, perhaps trying to rally people for some productive activity. Unless there is something he said that I'm missing.

[Demogorgon]

I don't see how TomK wouldn't fit in a communist society. Unless he tried to get control of the means of production for his own ends, I think he would just be a regular guy, perhaps trying to rally people for some productive activity. Unless there is something he said that I'm missing.

I think TomK would fit in quite nicely actually. But at the same time, he is hardly going to suddenly agree with us. He will in fact be just the sort of person who will criticise us all the time and help us spot our own weaknesses.

[Bud Struggle]

I am aware of that. I come from a former Eastern Bloc country, remember, so I know quite well the psychological profile and tactics of the people who destroyed the old system and restored capitalism. I wasn't aware that you came from behind the Iron Curtain. May parents came from Poland.


It was quite amazing to see people who had been singing praises to Marxism for their entire lives and always talked and acted as impeccable Marxists suddenly become ruthless free market capitalists overnight. It showed something very important: Censoring speech doesn't make your enemies go away, it just makes them keep their mouths shut, which is actually bad for you because they're so much harder to detect.

I oppose any and all restrictions on free speech except in the most dire of circumstances, because I want to encourage my enemies to reveal themselves, not hide and infiltrate.

Of course, many will hide and infiltrate anyway. This is where my belief in an iron adherence to democracy and egalitarian distribution of wealth comes in. Just about the only good idea that liberals ever came up with was that of checks and balances - the idea that any government or administration will always attract ruthless, power-hungry people, and the only way to keep them in check is to create a system that forces them to spend most of their time fighting against each other. Some people hate it that politicians spend so much time on useless infighting and bureaucratic stuff. I love it. It means they have less time to think of ways of screwing us over. Keep 'em busy.

And, of course, one important aspect of "checks and balances" that capitalism ignores, but socialism will cover, is the distribution of wealth. More wealth means more power; the more egalitarian the distribution of wealth, the harder it becomes to bribe people or buy favours, and the greater the relative wealth and power of the masses as opposed to the ambitious few.

Well, a couple of issues. I may look at things like this as a game--but most people that amass power--REALLY HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS. They are the "saviors of the people." They just become powerful in doing the "good" for the people that their will becomes the people's will--and then you get your Maos and your Lenins and your Castros. I kind of think they all began with good intentions.

You are 100% correct about the checks and balances. No one loves the Republican President with a Democratic Legislature more than me. No one is doing anything--and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm a firm believer in the government that governs least governs best.

My problem with Communism and it's the main problem that I've had all along--is that it goes against human nature, and maybe not all human nature, but certainly against my human nature. I would go for the wealth and power. And I'm a pretty nice guy so I wouldn't screw anyone over--buty I'd really play the game to win. An maybe you don't hang out with many guys like me--but Palm Beach is full of us--all my business friends are successful business men because each of them found a nitch and filled it with a specific good or service--it's in their blood, and to be honest--I can't see it any otrher way.

As you mentioned the leaders of Communism became the leaders of Capitalism when things changed. Trust me, the leaders of Capitalism will be the leaders of Communism if things change back again.

We are the same people. :hammersickle::star3::hammersickle:

[Bud Struggle]

I don't see how TomK wouldn't fit in a communist society. Unless he tried to get control of the means of production for his own ends, I think he would just be a regular guy, perhaps trying to rally people for some productive activity. Unless there is something he said that I'm missing.

Thanks, Dean. And just to make a note of it--when I mention "me" here, I'm not necessarily speaking about "me-TomK". I'm getting a wider and broader understanding of Communism than most of my good time business buddies. I'm speaking of the average made-his-first-million-by-the-time-he's-30 kind of guy that America is full of. These guys are winners and play to win.

[RedFlagComrade]

2. What is the point of labeling yourself a Menshevik or a more obscure branch of communism, when clearly post-russian revolution, there aint gonna be a populist menshevik uprising.




Whos to say that there wont be a menshevik or any other uprising?



:lol:
Unlikely;The Mensheviks split from the main communist party (the Bolsheviks) because they wanted to effect change to improve the power and lives of the proletariat within the framework of the parlaimentary political system of the day (social-democracy) and they were opposed to using force through revolution to bring about communism...

Oh, and I realise that that was just an example-Just pointing that out cos no one else did.



And that is why those experiments failed - because they did not effectively counter the lust for power and wealth that some people have. They expected human psychology to change too quickly, and of course it didn't.




Finally, another communist on revleft who acknowledges inherent human greed and doesn't just deny it out of hand despite the infinite examples of it's existence-Greed and ambition can be overcome but not by pretending that they don't exist.



and then you get your Maos and your Lenins and your Castros. I kind of think they all began with good intentions.


What the fuck did Castro ever do wrong? As a popular socialist (and Cuba is socialist, contrary to popular revleft belief, if not fully communist) leader he made giant steps forward in terms of human rights and equality, particularily compared tocapitalist "democratic" leaders in the first world.

I admire Mao and Lenin's intellectual theories, but I fully accept that they were often quite brutal men in practise, however I just don't understand how come so many normally decent intelligent people spend so much time lambasting Castro, who ran Cuba efficently despite the illegal U.S. economic embargo (Cuba would surely be a very wealthy socialist country but for that) , who was the only leader in the world to stand up to America's bullying foreign policy despite being a small third-world country only a couple of miles from the grasping imperialistic shores of the U.S., who provided the second best health system in the world to his people, exporting medical services throughout Latin America and the world, and the few question marks beside his name pale in comparison to the so-called leader of the free world, Bush, who murdered at least 100,000 innocent men women and children in an illegal war on Iraq and who advocates the continuing torture of POWs on an illegally occupied camp in Guantonamo, Cuba. Seriously, give the guy a break...Check out The Cuba Truth (http://www.cubatruth.org/index.html) Project (possibly the most important website on the internet?)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I wasn't aware that you came from behind the Iron Curtain. May parents came from Poland.
I still live in Eastern Europe, though I won't say the exact country because I'm paranoid about putting any personal information on the internet. ;)


My problem with Communism and it's the main problem that I've had all along--is that it goes against human nature, and maybe not all human nature, but certainly against my human nature. I would go for the wealth and power. And I'm a pretty nice guy so I wouldn't screw anyone over--buty I'd really play the game to win. An maybe you don't hang out with many guys like me--but Palm Beach is full of us--all my business friends are successful business men because each of them found a nitch and filled it with a specific good or service--it's in their blood, and to be honest--I can't see it any otrher way.
There are many motives that drive businessmen. Most are acceptable in socialist society, and will find new outlets. Some businessmen want to invent, find new ways to do things. That will be encouraged, and such people will receive public honours and recognition for their efforts. Some businessmen are compulsive gamblers or risk-takers; they get their kicks from competing and proving themselves against other people. There will be outlets for that as well under socialism - we'll get these people to do all the risky jobs, and advertise those jobs so that they come with a lot of prestige attached. Some businessmen just like to feel important. With power and wealth no longer an option, I think socialism should greatly encourage ambitious people to pursue fame instead.

But then there are some businessmen who are motivated by a sort of "will to power", the desire to dominate and control their fellow human beings. Such people have no place in socialism and we must forever be on our guard against them - as we must be on our guard against them in any system. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom and all that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Let me have a go:


General
1. When the revolution does come, arent you all just going to blow each others heads off? Seriously, when it comes down to it, would you all be willing to work with each other? Or would you just kill each other off until one became the dominant force?
2. What is the point of labeling yourself a Menshevik or a more obscure branch of communism, when clearly post-russian revolution, there aint gonna be a populist menshevik uprising.
3. How does the applying of all that Hegel and Marx philosophical shit help a revolution? Because, and i admit my understanding is shaky at best, from the outside it looks like innane conjecture.
1. In the best cases, other revolutionary tendencies broadly want the same things that we do. In the worst cases, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - in other words, smash the Nazi wherever he is found, destroy capitalism and then argue (maybe violently) with the vangaurdists over the place settings.

2. I don't think I quite understand your question. The Russian revolution has been and gone - I don't think anyone identifies themselves as a menshevik today.

3. Dialectics is bullshit. 'Nuff said.


Technocracy
1. Are people who want a technocracy called technocrats?
2. Isnt it just like waiting until the future when everything will be fine?
3. How are you going to change the image of "technocracy" because it sounds like a poor 80's Kraftwerk albumb (and i like KraftwerK)1. Yes.

2. No. There is nothing in Technocracy that prevents one from acting now. Don't listen to idiots like Demogorgon, as he knows fuck-all about technocracy.

3. Compared to communism and anarchism, technocracy's image problems are trivial. Technocracy also has a colloquial usage that means something different than what the technocratic movement means.


Communists
1. Will you ever be able to get rid of the perception that communism will always lead to a blood thirsty dictatorship, and that all commies are in denial? Even distancing yourself from the USSR etc doesnt get rid of the bad smell1. Maybe a name-change is in order - I find that most people react positively to the idea of classless society - providing it is not couched in "rev-left" jargon.

[Bud Struggle]

What the fuck did Castro ever do wrong? As a popular socialist (and Cuba is socialist, contrary to popular revleft belief, if not fully communist) leader he made giant steps forward in terms of human rights and equality, particularily compared tocapitalist "democratic" leaders in the first world.

I admire Mao and Lenin's intellectual theories, but I fully accept that they were often quite brutal men in practise, however I just don't understand how come so many normally decent intelligent people spend so much time lambasting Castro, who ran Cuba efficently despite the illegal U.S. economic embargo (Cuba would surely be a very wealthy socialist country but for that) , who was the only leader in the world to stand up to America's bullying foreign policy despite being a small third-world country only a couple of miles from the grasping imperialistic shores of the U.S., who provided the second best health system in the world to his people, exporting medical services throughout Latin America and the world, and the few question marks beside his name pale in comparison to the so-called leader of the free world, Bush, who murdered at least 100,000 innocent men women and children in an illegal war on Iraq and who advocates the continuing torture of POWs on an illegally occupied camp in Guantonamo, Cuba. Seriously, give the guy a break...Check out The Cuba Truth (http://www.cubatruth.org/index.html) Project (possibly the most important website on the internet?)

My issue with Fidel is the one I stated--he stopped being a proponent of the revolution and he BECAME the Revolution. He was as I stated above--a good man that got infatuated by power--Only HE could be the Revolution, only HE spoke for Cuba. I've been to Cuba a bunch of times and it's not a bad place--there are much worse, but it's not "free" in any sense of the word. there is nothing there that is Democratic--it's decades of Fidel and now his brother. Is that a free Comminist society? When there is a cult of the personality--there is no place for the soviet.

The TRUTH Project is fine--but it's all about Castro's petty squables with the USA--and granted the US has been HORRIBLE to Cuba. But often that is because of Cuban ex-pats using their political power against Cuba. Most American's couldn't care less what happens there and only wish the Cubans the best.

Cuba doesn't have a problem with America--it has a problem with its ex-pats.

[Robert]

Robert, you support capitalism because you think society can never change in any meaningful way?

In that case, you could benefit from a closer study of history.No. It will change, but the fundamental things apply. As time. Goes. By.

And thank you for that most avuncular tip.

[534634634265]

What the fuck did Castro ever do wrong? As a popular socialist (and Cuba is socialist, contrary to popular revleft belief, if not fully communist) leader he made giant steps forward in terms of human rights and equality, particularily compared tocapitalist "democratic" leaders in the first world.

I admire Mao and Lenin's intellectual theories, but I fully accept that they were often quite brutal men in practise, however I just don't understand how come so many normally decent intelligent people spend so much time lambasting Castro, who ran Cuba efficently despite the illegal U.S. economic embargo (Cuba would surely be a very wealthy socialist country but for that) , who was the only leader in the world to stand up to America's bullying foreign policy despite being a small third-world country only a couple of miles from the grasping imperialistic shores of the U.S., who provided the second best health system in the world to his people, exporting medical services throughout Latin America and the world, and the few question marks beside his name pale in comparison to the so-called leader of the free world, Bush, who murdered at least 100,000 innocent men women and children in an illegal war on Iraq and who advocates the continuing torture of POWs on an illegally occupied camp in Guantonamo, Cuba. Seriously, give the guy a break...Check out The Cuba Truth (http://www.cubatruth.org/index.html) Project (possibly the most important website on the internet?)

what did Castro do wrong? only subvert and twist the revolution in Cuba to suit his own goals of being the next strongman dictator ala Stalin or a variety of others. While Cuba may have "good healthcare" they also are a third world country, only miles from opulent southern florida. its not because of US sanctions either, so don't give me that crap. If Fidel and his brother wanted to see good for their people they'd open trade with all the other ABC countries in south america. they could update their failing auto industry through Brazil, or import heating and vehicle fuel from Venezuela, etc.
or just traffick in Colombian coke and makes loads of money.:rolleyes: