Why your wasting your time

[Voice of Reason]

people who call themselves communists are just wasting their time because of the all the flaws in your crappy communist theory that marx just ignored.

1) you can't have a revolution without it being violent. Ok fare enough, but this would assume that the world is going to get crappy real FAST, so fast that people recognize its getting crappy and dont get tolerant of it.

2) Bourgois socialists are going to work with governments to ease the suffering of their poor downtrodden friends living in the ghetto, henceforth conditions are never going to accelerate fast enough for the "inevitable track of history" to occur. Modernized Countries (especially now thanks to all of communisms gigantic failures) will at best become socialist, but never communist because the existing institutions with capitalists in them will never be overthrown.

3) modernized materialistic, blood sucking countries( like the good ole US of A and the countries communism was originally meant for) are never going to take communism with its present name, reputation, terms, and so forth because of all of communisms wonderful failures in poor developing countries it was never meant to be applied in. (i mean how can technology save us when you dont have any?)

4) 1+2+3= your wasting your time identifying yourselves as communists because conditions will never worsen enough for materialistic poor headcases to understand that their lives suck (in fact they might not suck so much anymore thanks to socialists)

my conclusion is you should come up with a new theory that can be applied realisticly in the next 100 to 200 years to fight off the capitalisms problems you perceive.

[synthesis]

modernized materialistic, blood sucking countries( like the good ole US of A and the countries communism was originally meant for) are never going to take communism with its present name, reputation, terms, and so forth because of all of communisms wonderful failures in poor developing countries it was never meant to be applied in.

I found this quite amusing. It signifies a person who doesn't know America's track record with overthrowing socialist governments.

Communism never failed - it was defeated. I think we all know who killed it, don't we?

[American Kid]

lol, It begins.

Again.

Welcome, voice brah. Roll your sleeves up. It's gonna be a long haul.

And, prepare to have your avatar fucked with. :)

-AK

(non-commie) :)

[Blibblob]

Ok voice of the unreasonable. Let the least intelligent of the commies on this site take a wack.


1) you can't have a revolution without it being violent. Ok fare enough, but this would assume that the world is going to get crappy real FAST, so fast that people recognize its getting crappy and dont get tolerant of it.

The world is already crappy you sheltered fool. Try Africa, Asia, the Pacific. The only country in the world that isn't crappy is the US. And its not crappy because it exploited the rest of the countries, thats why they are crappy.


2) Bourgois socialists are going to work with governments to ease the suffering of their poor downtrodden friends living in the ghetto, henceforth conditions are never going to accelerate fast enough for the "inevitable track of history" to occur. Modernized Countries (especially now thanks to all of communisms gigantic failures) will at best become socialist, but never communist because the existing institutions with capitalists in them will never be overthrown.

How can capitalism not be overthrown? It's only good for the rich, and they continue to prove that more and more every day. The fascist US is showing the world how mighty they are, and how they are falling apart at the seams. Eventually the world will become completely fed up with the controling controled government of the US.


3) modernized materialistic, blood sucking countries( like the good ole US of A and the countries communism was originally meant for) are never going to take communism with its present name, reputation, terms, and so forth because of all of communisms wonderful failures in poor developing countries it was never meant to be applied in. (i mean how can technology save us when you dont have any?)

From what I said earlier, the US is on the way down. Technology? How will there be no technology?


4) 1+2+3= your wasting your time identifying yourselves as communists because conditions will never worsen enough for materialistic poor headcases to understand that their lives suck (in fact they might not suck so much anymore thanks to socialists)

1+2+3= You wasted your time with that post. I may not have completely rebuffed it, but I know somebody will finish it.

ARG!, It wont fucking fix!

(Edited by Blibblob at 7:48 pm on April 20, 2003)


(Edited by Blibblob at 7:48 pm on April 20, 2003)


(Edited by Blibblob at 7:49 pm on April 20, 2003)

[El Che]

So what should we call our selves? potatoheads?

This isn`t about public relations and we aint traveling salesmen. This is about setting the record straight, its about our right to think independently and to act accordingly. It is servile and abject to let other people`s opinions, prejudices limit you.

[hazard]

1) so? all boourgeois revlutions were violent. all bourgeois governments continue to be violent even after their revolution. supporting capitalism means supporting violence.

VERY REASONABLE

2) borugeois socialists? do you mean philanthropists? I don't even know what you mean. however, the implementation of socialist ideas, IN ANY WAY AND AT ANY LEVEL, is admission that its doctrines are good ones. their implementation, at all, is proof of the effectiveness of communism and socialism to force capitalism to change.

VERY REASONABLE

3) is absoutely senseless. so, if these countries took communism, undera different name but with same ideas it wouldn't be communism . . . because it isn't called communism? I say tomato, you say tohmatoh.

VERY REASONABLE

this noob is proof of the effect of a lifetime of brainwashing. he calls himself something he is incapable of displaying in even one instant.

[Anonymous]

""1) you can't have a revolution without it being violent. Ok fare enough, but this would assume that the world is going to get crappy real FAST, so fast that people recognize its getting crappy and dont get tolerant of it. ""

sorry i somehow got lost in your speche... what you really mean about this anyway?
are you trying to say that with a violent revolution the world would only be more miserable?
in that case my friend you are wrong...

a revolution... a marxist revolution has to be violent...
this meaning it has to be made by the worlking class phisical strenght to overthrown the bourgeouse control...
this isnt yet equal to make a civil war or a bloody riot...

it can be made trhough many ways and some less violent and agressive than others...

yet in resume it will be a great push for a bether world..
this being a blow to put the world up its feet again...

now hoe does this make the world a worst place? dunno...
expecially when 4000 children die per hour in the world from hunger.....
a decent well located agression could end this...
this is if the ruling classes were overthrown and foreing aid from a more "correct" state at minimum was made..

i dont see how a revolution makes this world worse...
this is a socialist revolution...

because we all know what happens in fascists revolutions like the one in spain (franco and his gay troops from hell!) but then again this was more a coup d'etat than a revolution...
since we all know that the people really suported the republican part...

""2) Bourgois socialists are going to work with governments to ease the suffering of their poor downtrodden friends living in the ghetto, henceforth conditions are never going to accelerate fast enough for the "inevitable track of history" to occur. Modernized Countries (especially now thanks to all of communisms gigantic failures) will at best become socialist, but never communist because the existing institutions with capitalists in them will never be overthrown.""

one thing... if the bourgeouse were overthown in the first place you wouild see poverty nor guettos...
it is capitalism and the ruling classes that create poverty and class societys... the best thing they could do to ease the pain of the poor was theyr death..


this: "Modernized Countries (especially now thanks to all of communisms gigantic failures) will at best become socialist, but never communist " is just stupid..
socialism is just a precedent part of what will became communism if practiced in the right way...
socialism MUST work for communism otherways it wount be socialism... it will just be some underrated liberalism bourgeouse bulshit and therefore NOT socialist...
Communism is the future..
it is the final stage of human evolution..
when society reaches its climax of evolution and futfills all its needs equaly and freely then we can say communism as been achieved...
yet this must be put in practice though correct socialism not by capitalism...

""4) 1+2+3= your wasting your time identifying yourselves as communists because conditions will never worsen enough for materialistic poor headcases to understand that their lives suck (in fact they might not suck so much anymore thanks to socialists)""

I am sorry but i didnt understood a word of what you just said...
yet avaluating the last comments it will be typical bulshit..
yet i still dont understand how you insult communism and then say socialists saved the day...


""my conclusion is you should come up with a new theory that can be applied realisticly in the next 100 to 200 years to fight off the capitalisms problems you perceive.""

My conclusion is you should shut the hell up and dont talk about something you completly ignore...

Socialism IS modern enough...
it must be put in practice right away and it musnt be changed nor changed...
that would be being a revisionist when there is no point in being so...
socialism is the way to go..

the way to go is socialism...
yet you seem to think that somehow socialism can be puit in practice by bourgeouse and that it can be created under a free market....

it cant...
socialism as to be at least marxist to work...
i dont know where you got the idea taht socialism is diferent from communism...
yet i must tell you you are very wrong...

(Edited by DA SOVIET! at 1:40 am on April 21, 2003)


(Edited by the anarchist at 1:44 am on April 21, 2003)

[American Kid]

borugeois socialists? do you mean philanthropists?

I'll give you that one. That was a good one.

-AK

[Voice of Reason]

I mean this you morons who obviously haven't even read your own "communist bible"



2. CONSERVATIVE OR 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 form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon's Philosophy of Poverty as an example of this form.

The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightaway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work of bourgeois government.

Bourgeois socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit of the working class.

[Voice of Reason]

I mean this you morons who obviously haven't even read your own "communist bible"

so im talking about people who work with legislators and reformers to stop conditions from getting piss poor real quick which any violent revolution would need to exist in order to happen... so yes philanthropists

straight from the communist manifesto

2. CONSERVATIVE OR 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 form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon's Philosophy of Poverty as an example of this form.

The socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightaway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labor, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work of bourgeois government.

Bourgeois socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit of the working class.




(Edited by Voice of Reason at 3:04 am on April 21, 2003)


(Edited by Voice of Reason at 3:08 am on April 21, 2003)

[Voice of Reason]

all im saying is that world circumstances have made it impossible for a modern industrialized world from ever getting a true communist revolution and that your wasting your time supporting a lost cause.

people in industrialized countries LIKE THEIR MATERIALISM and aren't going to give it up.

[El Che]

Correction: You are wasting our time.

[Voice of Reason]

whats the use of communism without a revolution? its like machiavelli without a prince.. great ideas but impossible to complete and stupid to try and follow

[hazard]

vice:

you see, those of us who have read the manifesto UNDERSTAND it. the section you are quoting is in reference to sub-sets of socialism. in other words, bourgeois socialism ISN'T SOCIALISM.

what level of reading comprehension are we talking here, vice? there were three or four types of socialists that marx listed in that section. none of them are even remotely similiar. how you confuse just one with communism is astounding. morons? this coming from the voices.

[Voice of Reason]

im not confusing one of them for communism. hes giving a critique of socialists(granted the word for it in his day and it is unlike what the word means today) and saying why there wrong, dumb, or bad for communism. BUT whatever title you give this phenomenom it still is true, and he is correct on all accounts. the bougious socialists, philantrophists whatever, ARE a hindrence for communism to overcome if it was ever going to work by placating your petty materialistic prolitariat,,,, and guess what,,, they won and you lost.... at least under that ideology.

communism lost because of the idiots who tried to implement it too fast and incorrectly. Now it is impossible for a true revolution to come about(if it actually ever was) because mild socialists have taken the good ideas in communism and the critiques of capitalism and are constantly reforming societies with them in mind.

now I'm not saying anything about the merits of those socialist ideas right now, just saying because of them your wonderful REVOLUTION is going to remain forever a pipe dream (at one time maybe a TRUE one coulda been done but that time has passed) so why dont you think of a GOOD PRACTICAL WAY of reforming the injustices of capitalism(which nobody is saying is perfect by far).

and yes, calling yourself communists is only going to make people stop listening to you when you talk. come up with a new name.

[hazard]

vice:

im going to be charitable for a moment. nah, thats not me. you should seriously start structuring your sentences and ideas a whole helluva lot better. it makes people unable to understand what you are trying to say. complete and utter gibberish.

won? lost? won WHAT? lost WHAT? you are a strange fellow. every implementation of socialism is done to prevent revolution. based upon this notion, every implementtaion is an indication that revolution is so dangerously close that the slaves in society must be quickly accomodated, or else.

vice, just try and make a little bit more sense. from what I could understand from what you wrote I came up with this response. if you want more, start making sense.

[Voice of Reason]

communists lost the theoretical battle and the chance to ever see their theory, as it stands right now, be implemented by a modernized rich nation. They lost it because of reformers who are never going to go away.

yes, communists are right when they say capitalism isn't perfect, but thats all they contribute to the theoretical playground. Reformers understand the problems communists point out in capitalism and try to fix them.

for this reason communism, as it presently stands, can never exist in its true form. once problems in capitalist countries occur the reformers pop their heads up and rush to try and fix them. no society will ever be without new problems that need to be fixed, the passage of time makes that inevitable.

this is long winded, sorry.

what im really saying is that reformers aren't bad people because every society needs someone to pick out the problems and fix em.

and as long as reformers exist, and they always will, a true communist revolution cannot occur. the only type the world will see will be in poor industrializing countries that in essence, just replace one dictator with another.

[hazard]

vice:

these so called reformers are themselves losing for having to implement communist principles. the contribtions of communism MUST range farther than criticism if these reforms are being made. on a basis of what you have said, communnism is the most effective and implemented idelogy ever. so much for "theoretical". this is completely practical.

(Edited by hazard at 4:27 pm on April 21, 2003)

[Voice of Reason]

sure parts are, the general ideas. but not the whole thing taken as it is.

look at any theory. bits and pieces of each are taken and assimilated into our culture, values, etc. but not one of them is taken completely 100% as it is and tried to implement perfectly. each has its own strengths and weaknesses

its the same with communism. sure its has some good ideas about equality and fairness... heck the US has a graduated income tax... straight from the mouth of marx. but that doesn't mean the US is communist.

parts can be applied practically, but that doesn't mean the whole theory is practical.

[hazard]

communism isn't a theory or an alternate to capitalism as much as it is an inevitable future. marx had an understanding of history that brought him to the conclusion that communism is unavoidable on a basis of his analysis. whether you subscribe to this understanding, that makes sense out of chaos, or whether you want to believe the lies and chaos of the capitalists is up to you. the slow change you speak of is the process of history simply leading to communism. it proves that marx was correct. you know this, and yet you deny him. you are strange indeed.

[Voice of Reason]

i just see history as getting a stopped up drain. and who knows... maybe one day the pressure might get so bad it does explode, but I doubt it.

I'm gonna use a drawn out metaphor now to show you what I'm really thinking.

I see history and eventual communism like a shaken up bottle of coke. if you open it quickly it explodes and gets all over you. but if you open it real slow all the pressure gradually comes out and you stay clean.

thanks to marx suggesting we try and accelerate history all we're getting is a exploding can of coke. he shoulda shut up and let it happen in 500 years or however long it takes.

but by assuming the ONLY way to get there under current communist theory is to open the can quickly, communists are just stopping others from wanting to open the coke at all. they think coke is inherintly evil.

but since history can only go forwards and the coke has to be opened eventually, instead of quickly opening the coke, they are gradually opening AND they're adding other ingredients so in the end it wont be a coke at all, but something different.

now if in the end of history it turns back into coke somehow after all, more power to you. but the more you try and screw with it the more new ingrediants the world is going to add.

as for me, all I really hate is getting the coke splattered everywhere when someone opens it too soon. the eventual goals of communism, equality, sharing with fellow men, and all those other ideals are good and should be aspired to, and who knows, maybe one day man will be transformed into good enough people to do that without government, just for the sake of doing it, but not any time soon.

[hazard]

people only think communism is inherently evil because they are brainwashed to think that, not because it requires revolution. if revolutin were the precept for detecting inherent evil, capitalism would also be seen as inherently evil. the american and french revolutions were both violent affairs and allowed for the induction of capitalism.

to assume, next, that even aftr so much time a revolution is unnecessary is foolish. how many of centuries of feudalism was required before the bourgeois could succesfully revolt against it? a great many.

[Voice of Reason]

you know, thats a good point and I see your connection,,, but I tend to think the current world status is a little different. feudalism was overtly and obviously oppressive, the lords didn't give a flip about the peasantry and didn't even try and appear to. nowadays though, caring about the peasantry is all that large groups of people are concerned about.

in any case, whether there is a revolution or not, if there ever is going to be a revolution its going to happen a long time from now and it will be so small as to be unrecognizable. and it wont be masses trying to cut off the heads of factory owners or whoever. conditions are going to have to change human nature first, and that takes boatloads of time.

could the egyptian pharoahs have instituted democracy? I dont think so. people were having too much fun oppressing each other and they weren't ready for it.

so I say the best way to get what you want is to forget about it. if its inevitable, which given the trend of history it probably is(at least something resembling communism), its gonna come regardless of what anyone says or does. it just will take so long that we'll all be dead for a really long time and it wont matter what we thought about it.

but as for now, supporting communists now is just stupid and anal. human nature isn't at the point now to follow some step by step tightrope plan where one false move and the whole thing crashes down around us. and to think human nature can support that right now is inhumane.