Communism

[Sociobiology]

But, at least in the West, a majority of people are materialistic like me. How would you subjugate a majority to a system which they do not agree with?

Guns lot and lot of guns.

I sadly am not an idealist.

We gotta kill a lot of freaking people to make the rest fall in line.

And what exactly makes your system better than the current one?

[The united imperial sector]

He's a Stalinist. Not a communist.

I follow Marx and Lenin and read Stalins works.

So I am not a communist?

No i suppose you are but I still want to know why my post is so not true.

[CTALNH]

Marxist communism?

You aren't a Marxist.

Armed revolution? Revolutionary terror?

"Revolutionary terror" should not involve the mass-murder of proletarians. Or anyone, for that matter.

*Deep Breath*

Socialism is divided into three main trends : Reformism, Anarchism and Marxism.

You are a mix of the first two.You are not remotely Marxist in any kind of sense.Except for the last phase which you get from being a Anarchist/Minarchist.

[CTALNH]

I follow Marx and Lenin and read Stalins works.

So I am not a communist?

No i suppose you are but I still want to know why my post is so not true.

While I will not deny that the Soviet union had shortages of various commodities at time and a strict system of commodity distribution nobody freaking lived in poverty and died on the freaking streets from 45' to 90'.

In the 50' and 60' the Soviet union the standard of living was better than USAs.

[Democratic Republic of the Triumvirate]

I

If communism is so great, why does the whole world have to be taken over and forced into it? If it's so great and works so well, won't people want to be a part of it and won't a properly run communist state naturally attract people from capitalist nations elsewhere?

I think that the idea isn't that the world is taken over but that the poor and disadvantaged fight against the rich and powerful in order to liberate themselves from oppression. The theory is that communism works best when the whole world is communist. The idea is that people will want to be a part of it and will fight to that end. However it isn't perfect and people fear change.

[CTALNH]

Marxist communism?

You aren't a Marxist.

Armed revolution? Revolutionary terror?

"Revolutionary terror" should not involve the mass-murder of proletarians. Or anyone, for that matter.

Yes it should only involve the killing of bourgeois and reactionaries.

"Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."Engels

[The united imperial sector]

No i suppose you are but I still want to know why my post is so not true.

While I will not deny that the Soviet union had shortages of various commodities at time and a strict system of commodity distribution nobody freaking lived in poverty and died on the freaking streets from 45' to 90'.

In the 50' and 60' the Soviet union the standard of living was better than USAs.

And I suppose Stalins purge of his officers core and purposley starved his pepole becaues he thought they were hideing grain, or every communist regime is born out of massacres.

[Magnus Portucale]

@CTLH
Stalinism isn't Communism because Communist wouldn't persecute people and force them to collectivization by force .

I didn't see in Marx Theory anything related that it was need a Party to carry the revolution .

You support the genocide of Stalin and it's thugs so you are equal to nazism .

At least i know that i support Reformism ( Social Democracy ) and don't pretend to be Marxist Communist because i'm not and you do exactly the opposite .

[CTALNH]

Guns lot and lot of guns.

I sadly am not an idealist.

We gotta kill a lot of freaking people to make the rest fall in line.

And what exactly makes your system better than the current one?

Well not the killing thats for sure.

Communism is better for the people as a whole
Communism is better for maintaining proper health care for everyone
Communism would be the best form of economics in a united world

Communism is better for the people as a whole

Communism is the next step forward for humankind.Even if everything gets fucked up it can never degenerate to Orwells 1984 bullshit.See the Soviet Union.Sure some up and downs but it never degenerated to 1984.Capitalist West though....Drugs, Alcohol etc etc. All in the name of the old and well-known liberal-bourgeois views.

Communism is better for maintaining health

The rich don't care about the people.We all know that the advancement of medicine and the the quality of the care is directly coming out of your pocket in capitalism.Where million of people die in the world what do counsious capitalist drones do?
Donate to charity to appease their bleeding hearts bullshit.In communist society every will be taken care of Socialized medicine.You cough and the freaking Ambulance is at your door in 3 minutes.


Communism would be the best form of economic & Government a single united world

Capitalism encourages private ownership and survival of the fittest economics.In a united world, where all countries are collaborating as one, survival of the fittest economics would most defiantly encourage separation of the poor and the rich.As the poor increase, and the rich demand more, war will eventually happen just for the rich to get richer and the poor to become cannon fodder for the million freaking time.
In a communist united world we will discuss the problem and if we freaking can dismantle the borders!Also a State socialist economy world wide would essentially stop all famines.Yeah we are gonna have shortages but what do you want a Utopia?

[Sociobiology]

No i suppose you are but I still want to know why my post is so not true.

While I will not deny that the Soviet union had shortages of various commodities at time

mostly due to their decision that the state could tell scientists what is and is not science.
nothing like forcing people to act as though lamarckian evolution happens just because it agrees with your political ideology.

and a strict system of commodity distribution nobody freaking lived in poverty and died on the freaking streets from 45' to 90'. In the 50' and 60' the Soviet union the standard of living was better than USAs.

yeah I'm gonna need a source for this, life expectancy went up but so did child mortality.

[CTALNH]

While I will not deny that the Soviet union had shortages of various commodities at time and a strict system of commodity distribution nobody freaking lived in poverty and died on the freaking streets from 45' to 90'.

In the 50' and 60' the Soviet union the standard of living was better than USAs.

And I suppose Stalins purge of his officers core and purposely starved his people because he thought they were hiding grain, or every communist regime is born out of massacres.

You gotta do what you gotta do.

Whatever the anti authoritarian dude of the free socialists territories says the Revolution is bloody which he says should not even happen because the people will follow Gandhis velvet social revolution style that modern Anarchists seem to like.

I don't deny the Gruesome truths that are before my eyes.

[CTALNH]

While I will not deny that the Soviet union had shortages of various commodities at time

mostly due to their decision that the state could tell scientists what is and is not science.
nothing like forcing people to act as though lamarckian evolution happens just because it agrees with your political ideology.

and a strict system of commodity distribution nobody freaking lived in poverty and died on the freaking streets from 45' to 90'. In the 50' and 60' the Soviet union the standard of living was better than USAs.

yeah I'm gonna need a source for this, life expectancy went up but so did child mortality.

http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/7/753/pa ... ainerd.pdf

Happy?

[CTALNH]

@CTLH
Stalinism isn't Communism because Communist wouldn't persecute people and force them to collectivization by force .

I didn't see in Marx Theory anything related that it was need a Party to carry the revolution .

You support the genocide of Stalin and it's thugs so you are equal to nazism .

At least i know that i support Reformism ( Social Democracy ) and don't pretend to be Marxist Communist because i'm not and you do exactly the opposite .

Wouldn't persecute?
Marxist communism strictly states
Phase 1 Authoritarian peoples Revolution.
Phase 2 Establishment of the Revolution Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Phase 3 Persecution of the bourgeois and reactionaries both external and internal.Stalin "Socialism in one county states it was made to strengthen the Soviet Union"
Phase 4 Take over the world.
Phase 5 Start making socialism everywhere.
Phase 6 Start the slow dismantlement of the world State.
Phase 7 Communism.

[Pragia]

I won't even go into the At what cost part and just hit points
1. Yes, because every commune that has ever existed has been a mind blowing world altering success. The Soviet Union was the result of an attempted true communism, but it then also showed that a single person with ambition took an entire country. As to drugs and alcohol, whats to stop me from distributing drugs and alcohol, ain't like there's a government law to stop me.
2. Except there wouldn't be socialized healthcare, that isn't communism, and as I recall, wait times are longer in public health systems. Also class warfare is bad and you should feel bad.
3. There wouldn't be a state capitalist system, it's communist. And communism is a utopia. Again, please use a logical arguement instead of "ermahgerd greede rich guise r evul!"

[Trollgaard]

And what exactly makes your system better than the current one?

Well not the killing thats for sure.

Communism is better for the people as a whole
Communism is better for maintaining proper health care for everyone
Communism would be the best form of economics in a united world

Communism is better for the people as a whole

Communism is the next step forward for humankind.Even if everything gets fucked up it can never degenerate to Orwells 1984 bullshit.See the Soviet Union.Sure some up and downs but it never degenerated to 1984.Capitalist West though....Drugs, Alcohol etc etc. All in the name of the old and well-known liberal-bourgeois views.

Communism is better for maintaining health

The rich don't care about the people.We all know that the advancement of medicine and the the quality of the care is directly coming out of your pocket in capitalism.Where million of people die in the world what do counsious capitalist drones do?
Donate to charity to appease their bleeding hearts bullshit.In communist society every will be taken care of Socialized medicine.You cough and the freaking Ambulance is at your door in 3 minutes.


Communism would be the best form of economic & Government a single united world

Capitalism encourages private ownership and survival of the fittest economics.In a united world, where all countries are collaborating as one, survival of the fittest economics would most defiantly encourage separation of the poor and the rich.As the poor increase, and the rich demand more, war will eventually happen just for the rich to get richer and the poor to become cannon fodder for the million freaking time.
In a communist united world we will discuss the problem and if we freaking can dismantle the borders!Also a State socialist economy world wide would essentially stop all famines.Yeah we are gonna have shortages but what do you want a Utopia?

Well, the world is not united, and quite frankly I see no reason why it should be united. The world being full of competing entities is good, and benefits people, maybe not all, but a good amount of people.

[Magnus Portucale]

@CTLH
Stalinism isn't Communism because Communist wouldn't persecute people and force them to collectivization by force .

I didn't see in Marx Theory anything related that it was need a Party to carry the revolution .

You support the genocide of Stalin and it's thugs so you are equal to nazism .

At least i know that i support Reformism ( Social Democracy ) and don't pretend to be Marxist Communist because i'm not and you do exactly the opposite .

Wouldn't persecute?
Marxist communism strictly states
Phase 1 Authoritarian peoples Revolution.
Phase 2 Establishment of the Revolution Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Phase 3 Persecution of the bourgeois and reactionaries both external and internal.Stalin "Socialism in one county states it was made to strengthen the Soviet Union"
Phase 4 Take over the world.
Phase 5 Start making socialism everywhere.
Phase 6 Start the slow dismantlement of the world State.
Phase 7 Communism.

Source if you don't mind .

[Sociobiology]

And what exactly makes your system better than the current one?

Well not the killing thats for sure.

Communism is better for the people as a whole

how?

Communism is better for maintaining proper health care for everyone

current states seem to be doing just fine.

Communism would be the best form of economics in a united world

based on what measure? failure?

Communism is better for the people as a whole

repeating an unproven assumption is not evidence.

Communism is the next step forward for humankind.

No its a step backwards, several in fact, humans started communist, but it is incompatible with large populations.

Even if everything gets fucked up it can never degenerate to Orwells 1984 bullshit.

do you know what a strawman is?

Capitalist West though....Drugs, Alcohol etc etc. All in the name of the old and well-known liberal-bourgeois views.

so communism is religious conservatism now?
so much for plurality
this is why communism kills science.

Communism is better for maintaining health

actually a mixed economy is better, since it encourages public and private health.Thus supply and innovation.

Capitalism encourages private ownership and survival of the fittest economics.

who said anything about capitalism, do you know what a false dichotomy is?

Also a State socialist economy world wide would essentially stop all famines.Yeah we are gonna have shortages but what do you want a Utopia?[/quote]
mixed economies can end famine without shortages, in fact it has done it over most of the world.
Although a great deal of credit should go to Norman Borloug for that.

Not to mention the soviet union induced famines that could have been prevented, by deciding the state could dictate science to scientists.

[Acro]

Communism would be the perfect system, equality for all. No rich no poor. But humans are greedy by nature so a true communist society would never exist. But you asked what is my opinion. ANd I consider myself a communist. I strive for equality and the ending of class sepperation. But until we end the misguided view of communism that most of the world has it will never succeed.

[Magnus Portucale]

Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

[Sociobiology]

@CTLH
Stalinism isn't Communism because Communist wouldn't persecute people and force them to collectivization by force .

I didn't see in Marx Theory anything related that it was need a Party to carry the revolution .

You support the genocide of Stalin and it's thugs so you are equal to nazism .

At least i know that i support Reformism ( Social Democracy ) and don't pretend to be Marxist Communist because i'm not and you do exactly the opposite .

Wouldn't persecute?
Marxist communism strictly states
Phase 1 Authoritarian peoples Revolution.
Phase 2 Establishment of the Revolution Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Phase 3 Persecution of the bourgeois and reactionaries both external and internal.Stalin "Socialism in one county states it was made to strengthen the Soviet Union"
Phase 4 Take over the world.
Phase 5 Start making socialism everywhere.
Phase 6 Start the slow dismantlement of the world State.
Phase 7 Communism.

Phase 8 without law, social order collapses, population centers breakup/reduced to a few hundred people.
Phase 9 without the population to maintain it technology collapses.
Phase 10 without technology massive famine and death ensue.
Phase 11 surviving people form new states
Phase 12 these states start developing technology.
rinse
repeat.

although more likely at phase 3 they turn into just another dictatorship as they start killing off people with differing opinions.

[CTALNH]

Wouldn't persecute?
Marxist communism strictly states
Phase 1 Authoritarian peoples Revolution.
Phase 2 Establishment of the Revolution Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Phase 3 Persecution of the bourgeois and reactionaries both external and internal.Stalin "Socialism in one county states it was made to strengthen the Soviet Union"
Phase 4 Take over the world.
Phase 5 Start making socialism everywhere.
Phase 6 Start the slow dismantlement of the world State.
Phase 7 Communism.

although more likely at phase 3 they turn into just another dictatorship as they start killing off people with differing opinions.

We already are doing that in phase 2...

It would take hundreds of years to achieve communism.The new enlightened Socialist citizen will have by then be made.

[Virenna]

although more likely at phase 3 they turn into just another dictatorship as they start killing off people with differing opinions.

We already are doing that in phase 2...

It would take hundreds of years to achieve communism.The new enlightened Socialist citizen will have by then be made.

Hundreds of years and billions of deaths for a system that only a few want? Well that's totally worth it. (That's sarcasm if you can't tell)

[Pragia]

although more likely at phase 3 they turn into just another dictatorship as they start killing off people with differing opinions.

We already are doing that in phase 2...

It would take hundreds of years to achieve communism.The new enlightened Socialist citizen will have by then be made.

And by enlightened socialist you mean someone who conforms only to what you want and cannot have natural instinct.

[Stanisburg]

Informative really this spoiler.

The hub of modern social life is the class struggle. In the course of this struggle each class is guided by its own ideology. The bourgeoisie has its own ideology — so-called liberalism. The proletariat also has its own ideology —this, as is well known, is socialism.

Liberalism must not be regarded as something whole and indivisible: it is subdivided into different trends, corresponding to the different strata of the bourgeoisie.

Nor is socialism whole and indivisible: in it there are also different trends.

We shall not here examine liberalism — that task had better be left for another time. We want to acquaint the reader only with socialism and its trends. We think that he will find this more interesting.

Socialism is divided into three main trends : reformism, anarchism and Marxism.

Reformism (Bernstein and others), which regards socialism as a remote goal and nothing more, reformism, which actually repudiates the socialist revolution and aims at establishing socialism by peaceful means, reformism, which advocates not class struggle but class collaboration — this reformism is decaying day by day, is day by day losing all semblance of socialism and, in our opinion, it is totally unnecessary to examine it in these articles when defining socialism.

It is altogether different with Marxism and anarchism: both are at the present time recognised as socialist trends, they are waging a fierce struggle against each other, both are trying to present themselves to the proletariat as genuinely socialist doctrines, and, of course, a study and comparison of the two will be far more interesting for the reader.

We are not the kind of people who, when the word "anarchism" is mentioned, turn away contemptuously and say with a supercilious wave of the hand: "Why waste time on that, it's not worth talking about!" We think that such cheap "criticism" is undignified and useless.

Nor are we the kind of people who console themselves with the thought that the Anarchists "have no masses behind them and, therefore, are not so dangerous." It is not who has a larger or smaller "mass" following today, but the essence of the doctrine that matters. If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself. If, however, it is unsound and built up on a false foundation, it will not last long and will remain suspended in mid-air. But the unsoundness of anarchism must be proved.

Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends.

This is a great mistake.

We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects.

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.

The object of our articles is to place these two opposite principles side by side, to compare Marxism with anarchism, and thereby throw light on their respective virtues and defects. At this point we think it necessary to acquaint the reader with the plan of these articles.

We shall begin with a description of Marxism, deal, in passing, with the Anarchists' views on Marxism, and then proceed to criticise anarchism itself. Namely: we shall expound the dialectical method, the Anarchists' views on this method, and our criticism; the materialist theory, the Anarchists' views and our criticism (here, too, we shall discuss the socialist revolution, the socialist dictatorship, the minimum programme, and tactics generally); the philosophy of the Anarchists and our criticism; the socialism of the Anarchists and our criticism; anarchist tactics and organisation — and, in conclusion, we shall give our deductions.

We shall try to prove that, as advocates of small community socialism, the Anarchists are not genuine Socialists.

We shall also try to prove that, in so far as they repudiate the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Anarchists are also not genuine revolutionaries. . . .

Reformism is "decaying"? Have you checked out the state of revolutionary Marxism lately?

Reformist Social Democratic and Labor parties--major forces in many of the world's parliamentary democracies. Have succeeded in achieving many reformist goals, such as the creation of welfare states and legal recognition of collective bargaining rights.

Leninism/Stalinism--gone, vanguard government of world proletarian revolution no longer exists.

Juche--starving. Wholly dependent on foreign aid, much of it from capitalist, "imperialist" states it claims to be fighting.

Maoism--only surviving by pimping out its proletariat to the capitalists and imperialists it. claims to be fighting.

Castro--still around, but basically irrelevant.

Anarchism--mostly irrelevant, but recently staged ongoing, simultaneous protests against capitalist class system in hundreds of cities worldwide; didn't amount to much, but I'd be surprised to see Marxists succeed at filling a high-school gymnasium with their supporters in any capitalist country where the masses are supposedly clamoring for what they have to offer.

[CTALNH]

~Snip~

Communism is the next step forward for humankind.Even if everything gets fucked up it can never degenerate to Orwells 1984 bullshit.See the Soviet Union.Sure some up and downs but it never degenerated to 1984.Capitalist West though....Drugs, Alcohol etc etc. All in the name of the old and well-known liberal-bourgeois views.

Communism mean cultural pluralism not liberal-bourgeois views of individualistic freedom.The collective above all else.
Drinking, Gambling,Smoking,Drugs and prudism,racism,sexism and the gap between the poor and the rich that is widening are not progression but degeneration of the capitalist society.



"Current states seem to be doing just fine."

Are you fucking kidding me?2009 there were 50.7 million people in the US (16.7% of the population) that did not have health insurance.We both freaking know that the corporation won't give a fucking dame if they live or die.

The enlightened Socialist citizen will be the perfect human.

"This is why communism kills science."

What?Mr Sociobiology I think you are are half lieing here.
Are we forgetting what the soviets achieved in physics,medicine and mathematics?Or Sputnik?The first man in space?
Consumer technologies where held back yes.Killing science?That is lieing out of your teeth sir.

Innovation is better if its state managed.If a product is not profitable for mass production we all know that only the rich will buy it.