Communism

[CTALNH]

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.

The new Enlightened human being will think collectively that us who think individually.

The collective always first.

[CTALNH]

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)

Holy shit sounds like what capitalism did to feudalism....wow....

[Pragia]

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.

Industrial revolution? Age of Exploration? Renaissance? Cold War (competing industries)?
No.

[CTALNH]

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.

Industrial revolution? Age of Exploration? Renaissance? Cold War (competing industries)?
No.

Are trying to prove my point?
Thanks.

[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.

[Pragia]

Industrial revolution? Age of Exploration? Renaissance? Cold War (competing industries)?
No.

Are trying to prove my point?
Thanks.

Industrial revo-corporations
AoE- joint stock companies
Renaissance-family buisnesses/ individual
Cold war-Corporations fighting for best product

[Virenna]

~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.

The Capitalist West was what gave you the ability to type on your computer right now; a competitive system leaves much more room for creativity and innovation than a highly regulated communist one. Finally, you vastly overstate the quality of life in the Soviet Union. Everyone who has lived in it, at least that I've talked to, hated it.

As for your "perfect Socialist society", it sounds like a hive mind, more similar to an insect colony than to a human one. And that, frankly, sounds terribly unappealing, not to mention against human nature. It seems you do not realize how little support that would garner. What would people do for fun in your commune? Work until they have just enough to eat, then sing mindless, brainwashing patriotic songs together all day?

[CTALNH]

Are trying to prove my point?
Thanks.

Industrial revo-corporations
AoE- joint stock companies
Renaissance-family buisnesses/ individual
Cold war-Corporations fighting for best product

Your still proving my point that capitalism sucks.

[Magnus Portucale]

CTALHN

Where are your source for what i request to you ?

You also didn't respond to this :

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. - Engels

[Pragia]

Industrial revo-corporations
AoE- joint stock companies
Renaissance-family buisnesses/ individual
Cold war-Corporations fighting for best product

Your still proving my point that capitalism sucks.

How? Mankinds moments of greatest advancement were caused by capitalism, and you're propaganda posters don't help your cause.

[CTALNH]

CTALHN

Where are your source for what i request to you ?

You also didn't respond to this :

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. - Engels

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... e/ch05.htm

The Great experiment that we shall take at heart and be taught from it?

[Aurora Novus]

How? Mankinds moments of greatest advancement were caused by capitalism, and you're propaganda posters don't help your cause.

That's not quite true. Mankind's greatest moments and advancements were caused by individual will to pursue ideas and desires. Remove Capitalism, and this is still possible. Now admittedly, Capitalism is phenomenal when it comes to increasing productivity, and therefore, speeding up the process by which advancements may be made. But the key things to remember are (1) this does not make Capitalism the cause of these advancements, and (2) that increased productivity does not necessarily equate to increased human wellbeing, and therefore, does not justify the system in of itself.

[CTALNH]

Your still proving my point that capitalism sucks.

How? Mankinds moments of greatest advancement were caused by capitalism, and you're propaganda posters don't help your cause.

Propaganda is saying that the 3thr world is starving because of capitalism?
Your not the only freaking human in the world you know!
People in Asia an Africa are dying because of your capitalism.

[CTALNH]

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.

The Capitalist West was what gave you the ability to type on your computer right now; a competitive system leaves much more room for creativity and innovation than a highly regulated communist one. Finally, you vastly overstate the quality of life in the Soviet Union. Everyone who has lived in it, at least that I've talked to, hated it.

As for your "perfect Socialist society", it sounds like a hive mind, more similar to an insect colony than to a human one. And that, frankly, sounds terribly unappealing, not to mention against human nature. It seems you do not realize how little support that would garner. What would people do for fun in your commune? Work until they have just enough to eat, then sing mindless, brainwashing patriotic songs together all day?

I never overstated anything I said that in the 50's and 60's the Soviet Union had a better standard of living.

[Alekera]

By all means, lead by example....

[CTALNH]

By all means, lead by example....

If not violence works just us well.

I prefer leading by example.

[Alekera]

By all means, lead by example....

If not violence works just us well.

I prefer leading by example.

If violence works just as well, how are you any different/ better than the people you claim are abusing others?

[CTALNH]

If not violence works just us well.

I prefer leading by example.

If violence works just as well, how are you any different/ better than the people you claim are abusing others?

I was trying to be funny somewhat.

Overlord 2 game?

[Alekera]

If violence works just as well, how are you any different/ better than the people you claim are abusing others?

I was trying to be funny somewhat.

Overlord 2 game?

no.

[Stanisburg]

By all means, lead by example....

If not violence works just us well.

I prefer leading by example.

You know, if you're going to try and come a militant hardass, your favored system's total failure to defeat the capitalists on the military and geopolitical front is the most damning possible critique of it by your own standards.

[Conscentia]

Your still proving my point that capitalism sucks.

How? Mankinds moments of greatest advancement were caused by capitalism, and you're propaganda posters don't help your cause.

No. Private ownership of the means of production has not caused the greatest moments of advancement.

[Jassysworth 1]

@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 .

Stalinism is a part of the communist ideology. So is council communism, maoism, Trotsky etc...

Go to wikipedia and it will tell you that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If you scroll down to the types of communism, Stalinism is under Marxism, specifically it is a form of Marxist-Leninism. It is part of the group of communists who believe in the need of a vanguard party to lead the way for the eventual withering away of states and classes.

And it is supported by the Communist manifesto, Marx talks about how there is a need for a transitory period between capitalism and communism called socialism in which a vanguard party takes control and sets the conditions for communism. Stalinists are just part of a camp that believes this period ought to be pretty long.

I think you are confusing Marxist communism with left anarchism... there is a difference. All communists believe that there is a transitory period called socialism (though this means different things for different camps, for example while Marxist-Lenninists including Stalinists emphasize the role of a socialist state and a vanguard party, council communists emphasize worker-controlled councils with decentralized representatives subject to recall), left anarchists are more likely to say we can make the direct transition from state to stateless.

Hence, not all anarchists are communists even though the end goal of communism is a form of statelessness, most communists (Stalinists included) would emphasize the importance of a transitory state socialism period.

In fact, for most of history it the orthodox Marxist camp has emphasized the importance of the state socialist transitory period. It is only recently that the group known as council communists and libertarian marxists have started to walk away from the orthodox Marxist-Lenninist camp.

Hence, communism is very diverse and certainly the orthodox camp, most communists, would support some sort of violent (or partially violent revolution) with a vanguard and a transitory state socialist period.



It's just that in NSG, left anarchists claiming to be the only communists and to have a monopoly on the ideas of Marx (to the exclusion of the more numerous and orthodox Marxist-Leninists) are strangely over represented. It is a common tendency for those on the far left, few in number already as they are, to attack and try to discredit each other as somehow belonging to another group.

However, as a center-rightist I am more positioned to give an unbiased opinion about who belongs where. And by doctrine, so long as one has some notion of socialism and communism that can be backed by at least some of Marx's writings and so long as one can claim that one's immediate short-term or LONG term goal is a stateless, classless, and moneyless society... one belongs in the communist camp.

This is how you can have people who want a stronger state and those who want a hugely decentralized socialist transitory period BOTH being in the communist camp.

However, anyone who disavows the socialist transitory state (or a socialist transitory non-state if you are a council commie) is more of a left anarchist than an orthodox communist... This is because Marx's theory of historical materialism in which concrete progression of history from period to period (including socialism) is such a central idea to the communist ideology...

[Trotskylvania]

If you scroll down to the types of communism, Stalinism is under Marxism, specifically it is a form of Marxist-Leninism. It is part of the group of communists who believe in the need of a vanguard party to lead the way for the eventual withering away of states and classes.

Vanguardism is not what is unique to Leninism. Marxism-Leninism's canard is the necessity, in the context of an underdeveloped nation like Russia, the communists would take power to spark revolution in more advanced nations, which would then bail them out. But it didn't work that way, so Lenin and co argued to cover up for their fuck up, that due to material circumstances, the party would have to take control of production for the task of "building socialism in one country", using the state capitalist methods that they had previously rejected.

Leninism is an ad hoc ideology, and only really had any weight because Stalin used the might of the Soviet state to establish it as the holy writ of the communist left, purging all who dissented. But Lenin himself was surprisingly honest about how far they'd deviated from Marx; hence him going from, in 1917, from saying "All power to the soviets" to in 1919 saying that Bolshevism was state capitalism made to benefit the whole people.

And it is supported by the Communist manifesto, Marx talks about how there is a need for a transitory period between capitalism and communism called socialism in which a vanguard party takes control and sets the conditions for communism. Stalinists are just part of a camp that believes this period ought to be pretty long.

The Manifesto is irrelevant, because it was obscelescent the moment the uprisings of 1848 played out. In the new epoch that followed, it no longer became necessary for Marxists to support the state as weapon against feudal reaction. The state and the liberals had already won. And the state was becoming increasingly apparent as the enemy of the workers.

Hence, why in the Civil War in France, Marx praised the Paris Commune for understanding that the workers could not take control of the ready machinery of the state. They had to destroy it, and make institutions suited for the class struggle. That means the workers taking power as a class. Not a party, and definitely not any one person doing it. The party's role was simply to be the most advanced section of the class; educate, agitate and organize.

This is why Marx criticized the so-called "Orthodox Marxist" Social Democratic Party of Germany for their desire to use the bourgeois state as an instrument of social transformation. In his own words, "It is by no means the interest of workers, having abandoned the narrow mentality of subjects, to set the state free. Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one totally subordinated to it, and today too the various forms of state are 'free' to the extent that they restrict the freedom the state."

I think you are confusing Marxist communism with left anarchism... there is a difference. All communists believe that there is a transitory period called socialism (though this means different things for different camps, for example while Marxist-Lenninists including Stalinists emphasize the role of a socialist state and a vanguard party, council communists emphasize worker-controlled councils with decentralized representatives subject to recall), left anarchists are more likely to say we can make the direct transition from state to stateless.

That is nowhere apparent in Marx's own writings. Marx used the terms socialism and communism totally interchangeably. The distinction that was established was between the lower and higher stages of communism. In the lower stage of communism, the minimal state would exist to suppress counter revolution, but state control of the means of production never entered into it.

In fact, for most of history it the orthodox Marxist camp has emphasized the importance of the state socialist transitory period. It is only recently that the group known as council communists and libertarian marxists have started to walk away from the orthodox Marxist-Lenninist camp.

The tendency you're describing in the former case would more properly be called Lasalleanism, because it was based on Ferdinand Lasalle's quite probably deliberate misappropriation of some of Marx's concepts for his own ends. As Marx himself put it when he was credited/blamed for the SPD's politics, "If that is Marxism, all I know is that I am no Marxist".

Marxism-Leninism is in no way "orthodox". The left communist tendency, in which libertarian Marxists and council communists reside, is actually older. They only became "left communists" when Lenin so named them for their stubborn desire to not play make believe about what was going on in Russia.

[CTALNH]

~Snip~

You have read your facts at least.

The thing is Trotskylvania that Stalin agreed with Lenin.

Neither of them said the opposite of what you said.Neither did they say that libertarian socialists and Left anarchists did not pre~date them.

On the contrary they stressed that both of those ideologies where better established than Marxism Leninism.

Both Lenin and Stalin wrote several works about Anarchism.

Also Lenin never said that Bolshevism is state capitalist he said that NEP (New economic Policy) is state capitalist.

I will completely ignore the opinion "of the free socialist territories" because by him only Bakunin and Mahko were communists.

[Sociobiology]

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.

through genetic manipulation?