Socialismphobia

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

I actually know people that saw both Kim Jongs, as proletariat heroes on the road to Marxism.

It's quite worrying actually, they genuinely think they're socialist.

wow, no true scotsman? hello? bloody communists, i swear.

In fairness, they're pretty much an anomie. I don't really take them seriously.

Most of them are just a bunch of Stalinists, that self made themselves Stalinists, just for the sake of opposing Trotskyists, despite both having the same initial goal.

I treat them as closet-fascists, because that's... well, what they are.

[Crushilista]

that ONE TIME that communism worked for a few weeks?

One time? For a few weeks?

Pretty sure that the Tolstoyans, Twin Oaks, Hutterites, Shakers, Anabaptists, and kibbutzim have been around quite a bit longer.

The groups that you just listed are of religious quality. They band together out of fear of damnation and death. I have nothing against the religious, I'm a deist myself, but it's undeniable that religious fears had to have played some sort of part.

As for Twin Oaks, the people there are all there willingly. Millions of people won't follow something like communism fully willing; that's why dictators usually rise.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

There's something quite ironic that Communism's presence has been facilitated by religion. The presence of something conservative and right wing helping to fuel the success of something progressive and left wing.

On a similar note, wasn't the main facilitator of anarcho-communism a royal prince?

[Chestaan]

One time? For a few weeks?

Pretty sure that the Tolstoyans, Twin Oaks, Hutterites, Shakers, Anabaptists, and kibbutzim have been around quite a bit longer.

The groups that you just listed are of religious quality. They band together out of fear of damnation and death. I have nothing against the religious, I'm a deist myself, but it's undeniable that religious fears had to have played some sort of part.

As for Twin Oaks, the people there are all there willingly. Millions of people won't follow something like communism fully willing; that's why dictators usually rise.

But most communists will tell you that eventually people will get sick of capitalism and will see communism as a viable alternative. In this case, there will be no need for dictators.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

There's something quite ironic that Communism's presence has been facilitated by religion. The presence of something conservative and right wing

Not necessarily, or totally.

On a similar note, wasn't the main facilitator of anarcho-communism a royal prince?

Don't know if I'd call him "the main," but certainly Pyotr Kropotkin was a major player in the development of anarchist communism.

But no, he wasn't a royal--"Prince" in Imperial Russia merely meant male-line descendants of Rurik (or, sometimes, Gedimimas of Lithuania), and of course by Kropotkin's time the Rurikid dynasty no longer sat on the throne of Russia.

And certainly, the circumstances of his parentage really were rather beyond his control. In fact, given his position, it only makes his work that much more admirable.

[Crushilista]

The groups that you just listed are of religious quality. They band together out of fear of damnation and death. I have nothing against the religious, I'm a deist myself, but it's undeniable that religious fears had to have played some sort of part.

As for Twin Oaks, the people there are all there willingly. Millions of people won't follow something like communism fully willing; that's why dictators usually rise.

But most communists will tell you that eventually people will get sick of capitalism and will see communism as a viable alternative. In this case, there will be no need for dictators.

The only reason this happened in the countries that it did was from mass problems on all the people. By mass I don't mean that Apple made another iPad 6 months later and it made the people mad, but rather over half the population starving to death. People collect out of fear, benefit or love of those close to them. When people saw that they could possibly improve the lives of their families or possibly even stop them from starving, they fully joined with movements such as the Bolshevist.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

There's something quite ironic that Communism's presence has been facilitated by religion. The presence of something conservative and right wing

Not necessarily, or totally.

Karl Marx says the religion is the opium of the people, and the Marxist-Leninist ideology pretty much wants to axe all religion from existence, seeing it as idealism.

So is it a case of agreeing with something if it happens to suit our agenda, but demonizing it when it doesn't?

[Souseiseki]

There's something quite ironic that Communism's presence has been facilitated by religion.

what

The presence of something conservative and right wing

what

On a similar note, wasn't the main facilitator of anarcho-communism a royal prince?

fucking bhuddists! don't they know who buddha was?!

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Not necessarily, or totally.

Karl Marx says the religion is the opium of the people,

Who said anything about Karl Marx?

and the Marxist-Leninist

Who said anything about Marxism-Leninism?

ideology pretty much wants to axe all religion from existence, seeing it as idealism.

The history of religion in post-1917 Russia suggests otherwise. This was an issue that was hotly contested, and the anti-religious side didn't finally win out until the beginning of the first five-year-plan at the earliest.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

There's something quite ironic that Communism's presence has been facilitated by religion.

what

Read above.

The presence of something conservative and right wing

what

Well, yeah. It is.

On a similar note, wasn't the main facilitator of anarcho-communism a royal prince?

fucking bhuddists! don't they know who buddha was?!

I'm not being a hypocrite here, I KNOW Buddha was a Hindu prince who left his luxury. I was just asking a perfectly innocent question as to whether a lead writer of anarcho-communism was a prince or not. Because I felt it relevant to the nature of how something 'reactionary' can be seen to facilitate and help something 'progressive'.

[Chestaan]

But most communists will tell you that eventually people will get sick of capitalism and will see communism as a viable alternative. In this case, there will be no need for dictators.

The only reason this happened in the countries that it did was from mass problems on all the people. By mass I don't mean that Apple made another iPad 6 months later and it made the people mad, but rather over half the population starving to death. People collect out of fear, benefit or love of those close to them. When people saw that they could possibly improve the lives of their families or possibly even stop them from starving, they fully joined with movements such as the Bolshevist.

Yeah, like I said, the people got sick of capitalism.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

Karl Marx says the religion is the opium of the people,

Who said anything about Karl Marx?

As the father of communist thought, I felt it pretty necessary regarding a discussion of communism.

and the Marxist-Leninist

Who said anything about Marxism-Leninism?

It's an ideology that wants to oppose capitalism and bring in communism. And has been the forefront behind many revolution attempts.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Who said anything about Karl Marx?

As the father of communist thought

Hardly. Communist thinking long predates Karl Marx, and even today there are communist movements that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Karl Marx.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

even today there are communist movements that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Karl Marx.

Example?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

even today there are communist movements that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Karl Marx.

Example?

I listed several communist movements earlier in this thread. You even acknowledged them.

At most, only one of them could potentially be said to have any sort of intellectual debt to Karl Marx.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

Example?

I listed several communist movements earlier in this thread. You even acknowledged them.

At most, only one of them could potentially be said to have any sort of intellectual debt to Karl Marx.

So you're saying the Tolstoyans, Twin Oaks, Hutterites, Shakers, Anabaptists, and Kibbutzim have absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx whatsoever, apart from only one?

I confess to not knowing how many of these predate Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto.

[Quintium]

Sometimes, I do fear socialism. It seems to have few actual supporters, but they're extremely loud and tend to be a bit fanatical. It is like any other far-left or far-right ideology, only socialism is accepted a lot more than any other extreme ideologies. There is also the little issue of many socialists being unable to base their decisions and beliefs on reality, instead working from morality. I have debates on Skype with socialists on a daily basis, and they seem to follow a very similar pattern every time.

1. Opinions are exchanged; usually, mine clash with theirs.
2. We start discussing one part of the discussion.
3. I make a claim I know I can provide a source for; socialists immediately question me.
4. I provide the source; socialists immediately attempt to dismiss it.

As an example of number four, something excruciating happened recently. In the country where I live, there is a Central Statistics Bureau called 'CBS'. It had statistics I needed to disprove an English socialist, so I posted a link directly to the material he needed. He did not even click the link, and he automatically assumed I was linking to "JUST A NEWS WEBSITE AND THEREFORE YOU ARE TALKING SHIT". Later in the discussion, after he stubbornly refused to click the link for five minutes, he suddenly decided - as usually happens - that I was "not worth talking to" and he left.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I listed several communist movements earlier in this thread. You even acknowledged them.

At most, only one of them could potentially be said to have any sort of intellectual debt to Karl Marx.

So you're saying the Tolstoyans, Twin Oaks, Hutterites, Shakers, Anabaptists, and Kibbutzim have absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx whatsoever, apart from only one?

I confess to not knowing how many of these predate Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto.

Hutterites, Shakers, and Anabaptists clearly do.

Tolstoy developed his religious views roughly contemporaneously with Marx's development of his own historical views, but their respective worldviews are so radically different that it's basically absurd to claim that either one influenced the other.

Kibbutzim: a bit later chronologically (early twentieth century), but their (lack of a) relationship to Marxist thought is for reasons similar to those of Tolstoyism.

Twin Oaks began in the 1960s, and while its primary inspiration can be found in the so-called Utopian socialists that predated Marx, pretty much no secular left-wing movement since the late 19th century can truly be said to be entirely free of Marxist influence, even if it's just in the terminology used.

That's not to say that every secular left-wing movement is out-and-out Marxist: that's quite plainly false. But they almost all use some tools of social criticism or interpretive paradigms that have their ultimate origins in the work of Karl Marx (though since the 1960s considerably modified thanks to the post-modern movement and the rise of critical theory--but again, both of those ultimately have Marxist or Marx-derived origins).

[Blakk Metal]

He said WIDE-SCALE basis.

Name one instance of communism where it worked on a large, nation-wide scale. That's right... there are no such examples.

Plus you can even debate that your examples of so-called ''stateless'' societies weren't really stateless. Or ''classless'' for that matter...

Oh and by the way... all of the examples you cited above ended up NOT surviving the tide of history and NOT lasting terribly long even when they did briefly exist.

So I still stand by this...

Lenin,Stalin and Mao Disagree,

They weren't communist.

Because 100 million dead people are totally worth waiting all day for bread!

i didn't know they killed 100 million people in norway, sweden, and finland

but now i know

and knowing is half the battle.

They weren't socialist.

Without Capitalists we would not have computers - light bulbs - movie cameras - airliners....

We would have lines for bread substitutes - we'd have nothing but hunger and eventual destruction of the human spirit forever.

To really understand how socialism can destroy a culture, read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It's an extreme example based on a dystopian society - but it gets the point across.

Fascism is extreme nationalism combined with a dictator. Capitalism is people doing what they want in reference to the economy.

lest we forget there are many conspiracies about them working with the fascists....

All of those assume the Anarchists being capable of organised action. Forget about that.

Strawman

[CTALNH]

Lenin,Stalin and Mao Disagree,

They weren't communist.

Says who?

[Reggae Magmia]

They weren't communist.

Says who?

They were Communist in name only. But their countries obviously were not, and never were, Communist.

[Camelza]

They weren't communist.

Says who?

Anyone who actually knows what communism is.

[Two Fists and Half a Brain]

This thread is wrong, should be called sociopathology. Get spell check.

[CTALNH]

Says who?

Anyone who actually knows what communism is.

Oh yeah?

[Zweite Alaje]

Anyone who actually knows what communism is.

Oh yeah?

Yup, your heros weren't even socialists. Sorry dude, its true.