Log in

View Full Version : Communism Vs. The World



Winter
28th July 2008, 21:12
I haven't posted here in months for good reasons. I have been doing certain social experiements within the realm of political ideaologies. This study was mainly sociological seeing that I was trying to figure out the mindset of followers of opposing ideaologies while at the same time redefining my own. I discovered that those who oppose Communism have no idea what Communism really is. Many opponents see Communism as a movement which gives the elite power to run amok in one's personal life. They tend to see Communism as something altogether different than what it really is.

Where does the confusion come into play? Libertarians and Conservatives presume that Communism is the same thing as despotism whereas Fascists see Communism as a Jewish conspiracy to introduce a one world government, aka, New World Order. Both these views are extremely skewed by bias and ignorance.

Communism aims to bring about true Democracy, not despotism. When Socialists revolutions took place in Russia and China individuals were allowed many more rights than before. For instance, both abortion and homosexuality were decriminalized. Libertarians are against something called Statism, and for good reasons. When one refers to Statism it is more of a concern against nanny state tactics like banning trans fats and smoking tobacco. In this sense, us Communists are very anti-Statists. We see the State not as an entity to tell us what we can or cannot do in our personal lives but as something neccesary to instigate change. Ask an anti-government Libertarian how he would prevent multi-billionaires from rising up and making your stateless society into a monarchy. So long as the free-market and classes exist this is inevitable. Conservatives claim that Communism only sees man as an economic animal and voids out his spiritual aspect. This to untrue. Whether you are an atheist or not, one cannot deny the highest peak of "spirituality" to be the unity of mankind. The only reason Conservatives bring this point up is to try to move their own self guilt of greed onto the err of the Communist. If wealth is but one aspect of man, then why are they so against giving it up? Another Conservative capitalist argument is that Communism tries to replace religion with some sort of omnipotent state. They fail to realize the true goals of Communism, and that the state is merely a means to an end and not the end itself. All Marxists believe the only plausible way of bringing about Communism is for the working class to gain control of the state. If you subscribe to the thoughts of Lenin and Mao, then you will argue that this must be done through a Vanguard Party to inform the masses. The unfortunate reality that capitalists fail to understand is that Communism
cannot come about until the whole world ( or the most powerful nations ) is ready to go into Communism. One nation like China or Cuba cannot officially become Communist so long as powerful Imperialistic capitalist countries are still about. It can be argued that Capitalists are to blame for the slow evolution into Communism in these countries; which are devolving into capitalist states without workers' rights!

After digging through the filth which is the Fascist communities such as Stormfront and NewSaxon I found many interesting theories. One of the major views of Communism by these creatures is that it is a Jewish born conspiracy to turn all gentiles into subservient peons for their jewish overlords. True, many Socialists thinkers were Jewish but this is irrelevent. One can argue that the founder of Republican governments was Greek so Republicanism is a Greek conspiracy to turn all non-greeks into serfs. Fascists and Nazis see everything through the eyes of race. They represent the worst aspects of collectivism. They judge everything by race and/or nationality, even arguing that certain races are more animal like than others. We all know the reality stems from cultural differences, but despite much evidence they cling to eugenics, a long dead psuedo-science that seeks to create an "ultimate" race. If eugenics seeks to create a race to overlord all others, then why are they the ones saying that the Jews wish to do this very thing? Fascists also fear Communism because it seeks to create borderless nations where all people are citizens of the world. To them, this means racial "inter-breeding". Apparently they hold the point of view that offspring from mixed parents are horrible mongrols that are to be shunned by their perfect white society. Apart from these, Fascists do believe in a lot of things that Communists do, such as universal healthcare and workers rights, but they aim to keep it at a national/ethnic level and not a world-wide/multi-ethnic level.

After seeing all these different perspectives as objectively as I can I have determined that I, and all of us, are on the right path. It is only through our path that the next level of human society can evolve. Whether you are a Left Communist, Leninist, Maoist, Hoxhaist, whatever, we must unite on what is plausible for the here and now. We represent more than merely the economic aspect of man. We represent the vast majority of the world. We are citizens of the Earth and it is only with time will we have our opportunity. :star2::hammersickle::star2:

Winter
29th July 2008, 19:45
Within the Libertarian and Conservative movements there has been a disdain for the word democracy. They will point out that the word is not in the U.S. Constitution and that democracy will lead to a tyranny of the many. They claim that a majority group will take away the rights of a minority group ( Funny, because conservatives are for this when it comes to withholding the rights of marriage to homosexuals )

Democracy holds two principles: "The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties" Nowhere is there mention of one group taking away the rights of another group. They seem to be equating democracy with utilitarianism. Democracy does not automatically endorse the term "the greatest good for the greatest number".

But we know that in order to get to a pure democracy we must use utilitarianism to get there. The working class represents a vast majority compared to the bourgeois rulers. Throughout history, change only comes about through class-conflict. Contradictions move society from static existence to revolutionary change. And soon enough the workers ( middle and lower class ) will have their opportunity to rise against their oppressors.

We are many and they are few. It is clear why Conservatives fear democracy so much. They know the only means to getting there would be to remove them from power. They know they are a minority, so they spout lies of shrinking the government in order to free the common man from taxation. In reality, all politicians are trying to divide us.

They create animosity between the middle class and low class by raising the taxes of the middle class in order to benifit the lower class. Meanwhile, the wealthy sit pretty and observe this drama unfold. The middle class resents the lower class because their tax money in no way benefits themselves. They are told they are giving money to lazy people who will not do what it takes to be in the position that they are in. We all see this happening. Middle class workers cursing the poor for draining their money.

This is a major tactic the politically elite use in order to cause disunity amongst the working class. Class consciousness of proletariat and bourgeois is the last thing they want, for that would be the first step of their downfall. So long as the proletarians are divided amongst themselves as lower class versus middle class the elite bourgeois have nothing to worry about.

We can see how these terms are all intertwined and why the elitist system works the way it does. This is why organizing and educating the masses is the most important step we must make. Only till then can we move forward.

Decolonize The Left
29th July 2008, 21:17
Great posts - I agree.

I must say, though, your report on fascist organizations is absolutely hilarious.


After digging through the filth which is the Fascist communities such as Stormfront and NewSaxon I found many interesting theories. One of the major views of Communism by these creatures is that it is a Jewish born conspiracy to turn all gentiles into subservient peons for their jewish overlords.

:lol:

- August

Winter
30th July 2008, 05:57
Great posts - I agree.

I must say, though, your report on fascist organizations is absolutely hilarious.



:lol:

- August

Thanks for taking the time and reading it!

Yeah, Fascist organizations are hilarious in themselves honestly, haha.

Drace
30th July 2008, 07:15
Sweet posts, and of course totally agreed.

Unfortunately I don't have much to say to this awesomeness :(

mykittyhasaboner
30th July 2008, 11:05
it seems you have analyzed the mindsets and generalizations of opposing views quite well. these were great posts, very elaborate.

ashaman1324
11th August 2008, 06:57
great posts
very well worded, i comprehended every concept you threw out there with even my limited knowledge and consider myself that much smarter for reading it.:thumbup:

ckaihatsu
12th August 2008, 20:17
Thanks, WintersDemise, I agree with everyone who posted their commendations.



Many opponents see Communism as a movement which gives the elite power to run amok in one's personal life. They tend to see Communism as something altogether different than what it really is.


The nationalism that we saw emerge in the twentieth century was at the grandest scale -- the carve-up of the world by competing empires finally came to a head with World War I, since capitalism, by definition, has no other way to exist than through competition for resources and markets. (I highly recommend Robert Newman's "History of Oil" as a good outline of this period, which defines our contemporary era.)

I bring this up to make the point that the U.S.S.R.'s "Communism" was nothing more than a brand name. As any huckster would do, nations, too, can take very good ideas and then pervert them in practice into something far from what the original meaning was, and then slap a label on it.

The Stalinists called their nation- / empire-building "Communism" when it was really just another type of nationalism (though arguably with a more efficient and public-friendly internal composition). As with any kind of nationalism, whether from the Western powers, or Russia, or China, there *is* an elite power that runs the general outlines of people's lives, because they control the levers of the economy, and the laws.

In talking to people I usually find myself having to differentiate between *Stalinism*, which is the elite bureaucratic control that people correctly think of when they think of 'Communism', and * communism *, which is the correct analysis and political program as written in _The Communist Manifesto_ (which is still accurate today).

These days I simply identify myself as a 'Marxist', which is unique-enough and un-polluted a term to make sense to most people. In contrast to just ten years ago, people are not automatically hostile to the term 'Marxist' or 'socialist' anymore, since the taint of McCarthyism has finally worn off, I would say. It still depends on us to explain what 'Marxism' or 'socialism' means, though....



Whether you are an atheist or not, one cannot deny the highest peak of "spirituality" to be the unity of mankind. The only reason Conservatives bring this point up is to try to move their own self guilt of greed onto the err of the Communist. If wealth is but one aspect of man, then why are they so against giving it up?


I *am* an atheist, and plenty of people define 'spirituality' as "otherworldly", meaning some other dimension of existence that's not immediately apparent to us.

I like your definition much better, though, which is a humanistic one.

Keep in mind that anyone who is *not* a Marxist (or left-revolutionary of some kind) is *automatically* backward in their politics, and most likely in their cultural lifestyle as well. I don't mean to be pretentious with this statement, it's just a matter of how a person's politics contains a corresponding worldview, and therefore has implications for the person's lifestyle as well.

Anyone to the right of the status quo is, by definition, a * reactionary *, meaning that they would turn back the clock of progress if they had the chance. However, I agree that their supposed "politics" is more the result of them projecting their own, individual psychological hangups onto those around them. In other words, these types who profess to have a "libertarian" or "conservative" political side to them actually *** don't have any politics at all ***. They are merely trying to transcend their own, individual self-interest into more of a public arena, but they have absolutely no collective basis whatsoever for creating political positions.

It's obvious to us that their statements are ad-hoc amalgamations of whatever stupid shit they can think up so as to claim that they are "political", when in fact their investigations into politics go as far as the ends of their noses.

The conclusions they finally arrive at -- as you noted -- are just simplistic, anti-statist, knee-jerk reactions to the status quo, which, if put into effect, would lead in the short-term to government shutdowns (think Newt Gingrich), and in the long-term to the law of the gun.


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

GPDP
12th August 2008, 23:59
I like what you said about those people not really having any politics per se. I would argue the same is true about liberals. They don't really have a political program or platform, other than publicly stating what they want emotionally.

ckaihatsu
13th August 2008, 01:12
Yeah, there are plenty of good articles that document the demise of liberalism, that is, the claim that a bourgeois party would actually improve working and living conditions for working class people and social minorities.

Today liberalism is nothing but a chasm, since all liberals ("progressives") have been in tow, nose-in-anus, to the Republicans for decades now.

And the Republicans' nationalism is nothing but overextended militarism which has finally, definitively pissed off the entire world. As a result there is no coalition in the "Coalition of the Willing", and so we've seen a taxpayer-funded mercenary hit on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq which is now at a standstill.

The politicians' balancing act rivals many acrobats' high-wire performances, and the politicians' political ground is just about as wide as the high-wire itself. From the box seats it's a fascinating time in history, if it weren't for everyone's living standards being sucked out like bone marrow.