Are You Willing to Compromise?

[Spiteful]

We all know that a complete communist system would not work. So would you be willing to compromise for a semi-communist system? Which major ideas of communism would you give up in order to get the compromise? And which major ideas of capitalism would you want to get rid of?

[synthesis]

*delete*

(Edited by DyerMaker at 9:39 pm on Feb. 15, 2003)

[Anonymous]

Compromise is not an option.

[Invader Zim]

Democratic socialism is the only viable left wing government system and that has a good blend of communism in it. To some extents it also has some elements of capitalism i suppose.

[Spiteful]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 1:44 pm on Feb. 15, 2003
Compromise is not an option.

Yeah, I know, I read a general study about communist radicalists not to long ago which stated:

Most communist radicals are:

- fanatic
- demand immediate and total change
- belive in absolutes
- cause oriented
- generally young
- believe in force; methods can be violent
- come from oppressed classes of society
- terminal dissenchantment with nation's existing political system
- disgree with values of the majority of Americans
- uncompromising
- extremely individualistic and reject conformity.

(Edited by Spiteful at 1:57 pm on Feb. 15, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Great list, Spiteful...I'm for every one of those things!

Compromise is not an option.

And when you say that "we" all "know" a complete communist system "will not work"...who's that "we" you're talking about?

Lone Ranger: Damn, Tonto, we're surrounded by savage Indians. I guess we're doomed!

Tonto: [i]What do you mean we, Paleface?

:cool:

[suffianr]

Exactly.

And Spiteful's list looks more like a "Things I Hate about My In-Laws" in Cosmo than an objective observation on communists.

Piss off, mate, before you hurt yourself here. :biggrin:

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from Agay47 on 3:53 pm on Feb. 15, 2003
Democratic socialism is the only viable left wing government system and that has a good blend of communism in it. To some extents it also has some elements of capitalism i suppose.

To what extents?

(Edited by Michael De Panama at 8:41 pm on Feb. 15, 2003)

[Krobanikov]

Can one rightly separate communism from anarchy?I think not.Communism in effect is a stateless society hence Anarchy.As for compromise,we have seen the results of compromise displayed in repressive regimes as in the former Soviet Union,Peoples Republic of China and other nations claiming to be communist while in reality were merely what can be termed as socialist states or state capitalism.
Compromise sows the seeds of future defeat and as others have well said,"is no option". The prison doors enslaving society must not merely be opened,they must be kicked from their hinges and every wall likewise must be torn down.It would be futile to overthrow one form of harsh government simply to replace it with another.
The heirarchical structures that have held dominance over society must be completely abandoned for a more just system,one of individual functions,responsibility and mutual cooperation.I feel that a chain of interconnected communes each with its own functionaries such as administrators,judges and security personal,etc is best for the ideal society,a structure that would reach from the local level throughout region,state,national and international levels.
Enough concerning thoughts of reordering society for now,the essense of this post is simply to state what others already have,"Compromise is not an option".

[Pete]

The Soviet Union was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It never advanced past that point, but Spiteful compromise is not an option. YOu just want to keep oppressing people.

[HankMorgan]

The rule of law and the right to private property must be kept.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Spiteful on 9:55 pm on Feb. 15, 2003

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 1:44 pm on Feb. 15, 2003
Compromise is not an option.

Yeah, I know, I read a general study about communist radicalists not to long ago which stated:

Most communist radicals are:

- fanatic
- demand immediate and total change
- belive in absolutes
- cause oriented
- generally young
- believe in force; methods can be violent
- come from oppressed classes of society
- terminal dissenchantment with nation's existing political system
- disgree with values of the majority of Americans
- uncompromising
- extremely individualistic and reject conformity.

(Edited by Spiteful at 1:57 pm on Feb. 15, 2003)


You read? Clever boy? How about you put down your comic book and check out a fair representation of leftist systems before passing judgement?

Although looking back the list isn't as bad, perhaps the violence one is a bit out for quite a few though.

[mentalbunny]

What do you consider compromise? If I said I would vote for the Liberal Democrats rather than the SWP in the next election (if there was an SWP candidate) then would i be compromising my ideals? I think not, because I think that my vote for the Lib Dems would have a greater effect and move the UK further to the left than if I voted for the SWP.

I believe that true communism will only be achieved through democratic socialism. We have to learn to take responsibility for our actions for communism to work and we cannot learn to do that in the present system, in which we pick a representitive who then proceeds to lie through his/her teeth and gets nothing done for the citizens of the country.

I am willing to go through a slow change to reach libertarian communism, which in my eyes is true civilisation, but this is not a comunism because I will not stop when the rich are taxed properly and public transport runs on time from every village in the country, i will not stop when the NHS is in a decent condition, I will not stop when there is no shortage of teachers, I will keep going until there are no classes, everyone is valued for themselves, money is no object, and the people are able to make their own decisions because they know the truth.

That is not compromise, that is just taking longer to achieve my goals. Sadly I do not believe that I will ever really see an advancement in our society, we believe, for the most part, that we are civilised, I am afraid that we have brainwashed ourselves, that the fat cats and politicians have brainwashed us so they can continue to live their extravagant lifestyles while the rest of the world struggles on.

[Spiteful]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 7:08 am on Feb. 16, 2003

I am willing to go through a slow change to reach libertarian communism...

This is pretty much what I was looking for.. Thank you.

[Spiteful]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 6:34 am on Feb. 16, 2003

Quote: from Spiteful on 9:55 pm on Feb. 15, 2003

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 1:44 pm on Feb. 15, 2003
Compromise is not an option.

Yeah, I know, I read a general study about communist radicalists not to long ago which stated:

Most communist radicals are:

- fanatic
- demand immediate and total change
- belive in absolutes
- cause oriented
- generally young
- believe in force; methods can be violent
- come from oppressed classes of society
- terminal dissenchantment with nation's existing political system
- disgree with values of the majority of Americans
- uncompromising
- extremely individualistic and reject conformity.

(Edited by Spiteful at 1:57 pm on Feb. 15, 2003)


You read? Clever boy? How about you put down your comic book and check out a fair representation of leftist systems before passing judgement?

Although looking back the list isn't as bad, perhaps the violence one is a bit out for quite a few though.


So.. you get angry with me when I post a generalized list of typical communist characteristics while your comrades are over here bashing the American citizens with general information.. Maybe you should get your comrades to be on the same page so you can actually accomplish something. See: http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...ic=1581&start=0 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1581&start=0)

(Edited by Spiteful at 8:36 am on Feb. 16, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

‘I am willing to go through a slow change to reach libertarian communism, which in my eyes is true civilisation, but this is not a comunism because I will not stop when the rich are taxed properly and public transport runs on time from every village in the country, i will not stop when the NHS is in a decent condition, I will not stop when there is no shortage of teachers, I will keep going until there are no classes, everyone is valued for themselves, money is no object, and the people are able to make their own decisions because they know the truth.

That is not compromise, that is just taking longer to achieve my goals. Sadly I do not believe that I will ever really see an advancement in our society, we believe, for the most part, that we are civilised, I am afraid that we have brainwashed ourselves, that the fat cats and politicians have brainwashed us so they can continue to live their extravagant lifestyles while the rest of the world struggles on.’

Mentalbunny: …Libertarian Communism, is this word ‘liberal’ not a word of the bourgeoisie?
Do they not push forwards their policies of oppression under the banner of liberalism?
Liberalism is concerned with individual rights and freedoms. Individual freedoms such as speech, ownership, choice etc., etc. Liberalism awards these individual class definitions (free speech, ownership etc.) to all of society but as is the nature of individuality; in differing doses. We must destroy the bourgeois class and take these freedoms from them and then destroy the class antagonisms they cause and create a homogenous society.
The working class do not want to be liberal, they want to be liberated. Liberalism is a cause for us too deny collective responsibility and collective cohesion. Peace is only deserving for one class, freedom is only deserving for one class; the mass class. Those divisive to the mass class love you to desire peaceful libertarian change, because they would rather implore the weakest weapon than invite the most potent.

Free speech only goes to those that own the means of distribution of speech i.e. the media, the bourgeois class and their government. WE DEMAND free speech for the masses, thus we must make the state and the means of distribution of speech property of the masses. Anything owned by the bourgeois class, even in part, is always bourgeois in nature, the bourgeois nature negates the wants and needs of the masses. The communist movement does not desire universal free speech, it desires free speech for one class. To do this it must become a dictatorship, the mass class must create a dictatorship, so - the policies of the masses, the free unequivocal speech of the masses and the creativity of the masses - is espoused to liberate the working class and repress the former ruling class.

Democracy can only come through a new class dictatorship. We do not need nor do we desire democracy of the bourgeois. As the working class become a dictatorship of their own construction they become a system solely operated for the liberation and progression of the working class. It is a dictatorship to one class; the bourgeoisie, but a democracy for the owners of this dictatorship; the working class.

These are all Marxist concepts. This is how Marx talks of this bourgeois socialism:

‘A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.
To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind.’

This Libertarian, democratic socialism seeks to address social grievances but retain these bourgeois ideals of universal free speech and so on.

To deny the dictatorship of the working class is to deny liberation and power to the working class. This is always ultimately counter revolutionary whatever socialist inclined policies one may have. This theory of a democratic, libertarian socialism is a form of socialism tainted by bourgeois ideals. Any who support this type of false socialism are undeniably greatly affected by bourgeois ideals. They must cast aside these bourgeois leanings to become a true socialist.

The bourgeois are our enemy, they create a society where one class lives off the blood of another. You may say that we are the same, seeking to create oppression, dictatorship and destruction towards one class. But this is not so, these are merely our means to lift our chains of oppression. The difference between us and the bourgeoisie is that the bourgeois cannot love without us.

In my opinion mentalbunny you have a propensity for equality, freedom and progression, but the bourgeoisie has educated you with its ideas so thoroughly you subscribe to a number of them. The world is not a fight between equality and disparity, it is not a fight between freedom and oppression, it is not a fight between reactionism and progression.

It is a fight between classes, with one the owner of equality, freedom and progression, and the other, the other is the owner of inequality, oppression and reactionism.


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 10:05 pm on Feb. 17, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

'So.. you get angry with me when I post a generalized list of typical communist characteristics while your comrades are over here bashing the American citizens with general information.. Maybe you should get your comrades to be on the same page so you can actually accomplish something. See: ]http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...81&start=0' (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=1581&start=0'[/b)

Spiteful, did you not notice that the post there was blatently a joke by an American nationalistic capitalist?
If you think anyone would actually say that you are severely misguided.


(Edited by Chairman Mao at 10:06 pm on Feb. 17, 2003)

[thursday night]

"We all know that a complete communist system would not work."

Really? Care to explain why?

[Spiteful]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 1:15 pm on Feb. 17, 2003

Spiteful, did you not notice that the post there was blatently a joke by an American nationalistic capitalist?




No, I didnt.

[Spiteful]

Quote: from thursday night on 1:54 pm on Feb. 17, 2003
Really? Care to explain why?


Because not enough people care.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Spiteful on 10:09 pm on Feb. 17, 2003

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 1:15 pm on Feb. 17, 2003

Spiteful, did you not notice that the post there was blatently a joke by an American nationalistic capitalist?




No, I didnt.


Ok, fair enough.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 10:22 pm on Feb. 17, 2003

Quote: from Spiteful on 10:09 pm on Feb. 17, 2003

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 1:15 pm on Feb. 17, 2003

Spiteful, did you not notice that the post there was blatently a joke by an American nationalistic capitalist?




No, I didnt.


Ok, fair enough.

Was that refering to me? If so am mildly amused, however am pretty much on the left, damn near to a complete anarchist and proud.

The post point about the list was a very twisted sense of humour. I accepted the list and therefore generalized just as he had, albeit sarcastically. To make it like less of an insult....oh fuck it what am I explaining I'm going to bed.