Pointless thread.
Results 1 to 20 of 20
did you noticed that maoist3 never argued with cappis? if i am not mistaken he only argued with me and other leftists.
Pointless thread.
i just started this thread to show that maoist3 claim to be anti capitalist, but never argue with capitalists. he argue only with leftists that oppose MIM.
um, if I'm correctly informed, the Maoist International Movement is a tiny group of crazy old men that prefer to oppose other leftists instead of capitalists.
\"If you ain\'t man enough to stand up and defend your roots/maybe it\'s time for you to grow your hair and lose your boots\"-The Oppressed, \"Skinhead Times\"
Rob is right..
\"Fuck Martha Stewart. Martha\'s polishing on the brass of the Titanic. But it\'s all going down, man! So fuck off, with your sofa units and your green stripe patterns. I say never be complete. I say stop being perfect. I say let\'s evolve and let the chips f
So? I havent been arguing with the cappies either.
hmm, I don't think one authoritarian socialist has ever argued with the capitalists, their goals are simply for control of their own people after a revolution.
Although I cannot say that for mazdak, because he is actually much more liberal than me. :biggrin:
Um.. I'm neither stalinist, or maoist, or authoritarian at the least and i dont argue with capitalists. Whats your point? I am anti-capitalists, but i come to this board to debate with leftists.. if i wanna debate with right-wingers i'll just step outside..
\"He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.\" - 1984
-------
I\'m gonna change the world one day! Or, maybe i wont, but i\'ll be damned if i dont try. - me..
lol yeah really
Stalinists don't argue or have quarrels with cappies simply because they both have the same interests - to rule! The only difference is that Stalinists have planned economy run by bueracracy and cappies have privatisation. Stalinists don't have an interest to free the working-class, so I consider them right wingers, no matter what they say. It's only natural not to row with someone who wishes to equally respond to his/her power when he/she gains it. Stalinists like maoist3 are an extreme enemies of the people. I cannot consider them sane, because they justify the Great purges of Stalin or Mao Zedong or any other stalinist. By believing that the Great purges were done to establish communism is a thinking of an insane mind who has no clue about the nature of genuine communism.
\"Humans, at this point, are definitely not prepared for communism but they are definitely prepared for the road to it.\"
It would be really interesting to see what would Stalin do if there were really any anti-revolutionaries within all these Old-Leninists group that he exterminated. :shocked:
(Edited by Turnoviseous at 11:42 pm on Sep. 1, 2002)
\"The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil.\" - (Albert Eisntein, Why socialism?)
\"Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy a
Don't kid yourself New Democracy. You ARE the cappies.
There are very few socialists here. The socialist vs. capitalist forum should be renamed "capitalist vs. capitalist" forum.
As soon as I asked Stormin Norman a question in "Long Live Stalin!!!" he turned tail and ran. It's not surprising, because he's used to much easier targets who share community with him.
Meanwhile, we are finding in argument that a lot of people prefer capitalism to Mao's China and Stalin's USSR--despite saying they are opposed to the cappies.
The "worst dictatorship" thread is indicative. It is very helpful in revealing the assumptions behind what people say. It would take me weeks to get Turnoviseous to admit he just prefers capitalism to socialism, which is why he is not concerned about supporting any armed struggles today or pointing to a record of overthrowing capitalism by his brand of "Leninism," but in the thread about worst dictatorships going in "socialism vs. capitalism," his and others' assumptions come out immediately.
Maoist Internationalist Movement
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
maoist3 replies for MIM:
Well if we are a tiny group of crazy old men, then our membership requirements must be great. 15,000 people attend our web site in a bad month. We come out with a paper every two weeks. I'm guessing you have nothing to say about another organization with better membership requirements. You're just pissing in an idealist way, right? You probably don't know anything about that sort of thing.
But then maybe you were trying to give us a backhanded compliment since Engels precisely recommended spending most of one's time combating those claiming to be socialist?
Maoist Internationalist Movement
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM
maoist3, ia am not a cappie. maybe the reason that allot of people go to your site is because people are interested in dictatorships like mao. for example, after i will done reading "we can change the world" i am going to stalin library( http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/Index.html ) not because i agree with his ideas or admiring him, but because i am in interested in the dictator. and how many members mim have? 100( http://www.red-encyclopedia.org/groups.html ). and the guys in mim are not old? they came from "students for democratic society" for krishna sake!!! i can't wait to you to reply.
ND,
Surely you know by now that maoist3 calls anyone who disagrees with him a capitalist. Of course, what he's pushing isn't socialism at all. He seems to be convinced that is means ought, and points to "successes" like China and the former USSR.
However, even a cursory glance at these states shows that they were not, by any stretch of the word, socialist in the slightest degree. Collectivism is not socialism. In the USSR, did the workers own the means of production? No, the Party did, and the workers were exploited by the Party just like workers are exploited by the capitalists, whose ruling elite, just like the ruling elite of the USSR, claim to be "for the people."
Socialism demands the democratic ownership of the means of production by the people. This did not happen in the USSR. The citizenry did not even have a voice in the workings of the Party, which controlled, in the first and the final analyses, the means of production and, just like the capitalists, used them to further its own agenda, disregarding the citizenry.
Anyone who spoke against this was labeled "anti-socialist" or "anti-revolutionary," terms meant to quash debate. These same tactics can be seen in the US where conservatives label anyone posing even the mildest criticism of Bush's plan for Iraq as "anti-patriotic." Such tactics have the benefit, for the accuser, of ignoring the questions at hand in a vulgar attempt to disenfranchise the source. This is a tactic used repeatedly by maoist3 in lieu of any sort of argument.
The Stalinists, the Maoists, and all authoritarians fear true socialism, which must come from the proletariat itself. In its place, they seek Authoritarian Collectivism where the economic fate of the citizenry is in the hands of the Party, and the Party is not accountable to the people.
The capitalists exploit the worker. The authoritarian collectivists exploit the worker. For Marx, the State was the means by which the members of the ruling class assert their common interests. Through some trick, Stalinists and Maoists assert that the State is the means of liberation for the proletariat. Such treacherous thinking is anathema to the goals of socialists.
vox
(Edited by vox at 5:25 pm on Sep. 2, 2002)
Economists have provided capitalists with a comforting concept called the "free market." It does not describe any part of reality, at any place or time. It's a mantra conveniently invoked when it is proposed that government do something the faithful don't like, and just as conveniently ignored whenever they want government to do something for them.
Yeah, I've been to this web page of MIM and I laughed my guts out. There are so many contradictions that even Stalin would laugh. Yeah, at least you've done a favour to cappies, you've totally embarassed communism and slandered. So, once again, to hell with you stalinists.
\"Humans, at this point, are definitely not prepared for communism but they are definitely prepared for the road to it.\"
ND, youve racked up about 650 posts in a month! Chill man
Number of hits since April 12, 2001 in new democracy website: 5,246. shit!!!!
maoist3, if all the anti-capitalists here are cappis, why would they claim to be against capitalism? explain to me please. and MIM are not crazy? as it written in the front page of their forum( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maoism/ ):"ONLY SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST USING AN ANONYMOUS EMAIL ADDRESS for security reasons, unless of course you _want_ to be tracked/intimidated/jailed/killed by the government."
If one argues only with the leftists this means that he/she tries to point out their mistakes, to teach which way is the right one. It means that this person cares about leftist unity.
Marx criticized such leftists as Prudon, Bakunin and others. Lenin criticized Bernshtein, anarchists, mensheviks , EsErs and Trotsky.
There is nothing wrong in arguing with the leftists as the leftist theories always contradict to each other.
