Your thoughts on communism?

[British Monarchist2]

As a servant to the Upper-Class, i belive that the commies were killers to the upper class and the rest of the rich people.

[Good Mind]

As a servant to the Upper-Class, i belive that the commies were killers to the upper class and the rest of the rich people.

I'm a Socialist with Communist tendencies and I don't want to kill the upper class or the Rich people.

[British Monarchist2]

As a servant to the Upper-Class, i belive that the commies were killers to the upper class and the rest of the rich people.

Oh? Who too, may I ask?

[Socialist Tera]

In Russia, they acted more likeNazis , one believes, than anything else.
Their robbery of the Upper-Class's houses and estates was simply frightful!

Nazis are far right fascist. The Nazis segregated the races in the communities, degraded women rights, killed the mentally ill and homosexuals. The Bolsheviks freed minorities, promoted women rights, legalized homosexuality and gave rights to the mentally ill. The so called robbery of the upper class' house and estates was the removal of class privilege based of blood lines rather than the hard work of the workers.

[British Monarchist2]

As a servant to the Upper-Class, i belive that the commies were killers to the upper class and the rest of the rich people.

Oh? Who too, may I ask?

omg-I thought that was sommone elses post, and not my own!

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I do not have any problems with non-Marxist variets of communism, just that I cannot see how Communism would ever arise from a 2. Dictatorship of the Proletarian, or, indeed, any government.

1. What do you have particularly against Marxism? Do you disagree with the philosophy of dialectical materialism or somthing of that nature?

2. You do realize that dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a period where the proletariat will be the dominate class in society? In that sense we are in the dictatorship of the bourgeois at the moment.

I understand dictatorship of the proletariat to mean a government of the proletariat, but any government at all would be an impedement to total freedom and Communism, whether it be a bourgeois dictatorship or a proletarian dictatorship. A truly communist society would transcend class and government, where Marxist's 'transitional' government has the power to stay pernament and create a new class and a new hierarchical structure.

[Quintium]

This is why you should hate revisionist communism.

See, that's also something funny. Even if all people in a country were convinced that communism was the way forward, they wouldn't be able to implement it because one half would kill the other half for being a bunch of revisionists. Back when I was a progressive socialist, my biggest foes weren't the conservative capitalists, but rather the 'bad ones on the left'. Instead of uniting, the left chose to fight over definitions and over what, in this day and age, would lead to 'real' communism. It seems that's still the case today.

Elaborate, please.

People are people. If you give some people control over other people's stuff, even if the intention is that they'll redistribute it and stop bothering people in the end, they'll end up liking the situation as it is. And then, as happened in pretty much every socialist regime ever, you'll get an authoritarian government that orders people around. You can't fix that, it's human nature. Give a man a stick and he'll beat another man for his goods. Which leads me to:

What's unattainable about something that was essentially the case for most of human history? The relevant issues are "how?" and "is it actually desirable?".

You know, there are people who have observed tribes that still live in what is essentially prehistory. They have extreme homicide rates, with up to a third and probably more of the male population dying of violence perpetrated by other members of the tribe. The more powerful members of the tribe hoard goods, especially those that reveal status - beads, fine weapons - and live in larger and more decorated huts. Men fight over power, women and goods. Essentially, people who live in 'prehistory' - which I assume is what you refer to - live in a tribal society, not a communist one, and within the tribe there are people who lead and people who follow, and they compete for control over the tribe and for control over the goods, and they have something similar to ownership rights, and there are significant differences in material quality of life between them.

[United British Union]

The Communists have failed in every nation they have had power in, and one knows China is collapsing constantly.

[British Monarchist2]

I work for a rich family that would've been killed if the reds had anything to do with it!

[Di Thiy]

The most effective way to destroy a nation that man has ever conceived.

[United British Union]

I work for a rich family that would've been killed if the reds had anything to do with it!

Which family, Madam? I am interested. Of course, one does not have to say.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I do not have any problems with non-Marxist variets of communism, just that I cannot see how Communism would ever arise from a Dictatorship of the Proletarian, or, indeed, any government.

*Dictatorship of proletariat

Firstly, dictatorship here is used in the original Roman sense - an emergency office that holds all power.
Secondly, proletariat is a collective noun - it refers to all workers.

Effectively, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means democracy uncorrupted by the bourgeoisie and other elements of capitalist society that would undermine the transition towards communism.

I don't care for that, any government, even a democratic government, is an impedement to a truly communist society. I have talked with many Marxist, but I find their argument 'our dictatorship of the proletariat' would wither away and transition to Communism rather unconvincing.

Thus, while I am already aware that a dictatorship of the proletariat is used to mean a truly democratic government, what I have problems with is not the 'dictatorship' part, but governments generally.

[Socialist Tera]

1. What do you have particularly against Marxism? Do you disagree with the philosophy of dialectical materialism or somthing of that nature?

2. You do realize that dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a period where the proletariat will be the dominate class in society? In that sense we are in the dictatorship of the bourgeois at the moment.

I understand dictatorship of the proletariat to mean a government of the proletariat, but any government at all would be an impedement to total freedom and Communism, whether it be a bourgeois dictatorship or a proletarian dictatorship.

What you call freedom, I call privilege. The "freedom" of oppressors is actually the privilege. We must remove all class, race, gender and sexuality privilege from the world. With privilege, we can have no freedom.

[British Monarchist2]

The reds have ruined everything they have been in charge of.

[United British Union]

One must agree that the Communists were brutal and genocidal in Russia.

[Vashtanaraada]

A great thing, but radically reduced to either Leninism or left-wing fascism.
Orthodox Marxism = best Marxism

[United British Union]

If we were all equal, as the Communists wish, then how would it be any good? Who, sirs, would run the government?

[British Monarchist2]

If we were all equal, as the Communists wish, then how would it be any good? Who, sirs, would run the government?

So someone ha some sense!

[United British Union]

Communism starts via one presenting equality and freedom. It usually ends in millions of people starving and homeless and the leaders living in luxury. One must understand this is what happened in Communist Russia.

[Conscentia]

*Dictatorship of proletariat

Firstly, dictatorship here is used in the original Roman sense - an emergency office that holds all power.
Secondly, proletariat is a collective noun - it refers to all workers.

Effectively, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means democracy uncorrupted by the bourgeoisie and other elements of capitalist society that would undermine the transition towards communism.

I don't care for that, any government, even a democratic government, is an impedement to a truly communist society. I have talked with many Marxist, but I find their argument 'our dictatorship of the proletariat' would wither away and transition to Communism rather unconvincing.

Thus, while I am already aware that a dictatorship of the proletariat is used to mean a truly democratic government, what I have problems with is not the 'dictatorship' part, but governments generally.

I'm not convinced by the whole "whither away" argument either.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I understand dictatorship of the proletariat to mean a government of the proletariat, but any government at all would be an impedement to total freedom and Communism, whether it be a bourgeois dictatorship or a proletarian dictatorship.

What you call freedom, I call privilege. The "freedom" of oppressors is actually the privilege. We must remove all class, race, gender and sexuality privilege from the world. With privilege, we can have no freedom.

I fail to see how my 'freedoms' are 'privileges', where you would like 'freedom'.

I am all for removing class, getting rid of gender, racial, and sexual inequality, I just don't see your distinction between 'privilege' and 'freedom'. both of which you have not defined clearly, only to constrast what my 'freedoms' are to your 'freedoms'.

[Socialist Tera]

This is why you should hate revisionist communism.

See, that's also something funny. Even if all people in a country were convinced that communism was the way forward, they wouldn't be able to implement it because one half would kill the other half for being a bunch of revisionists. Back when I was a progressive socialist, my biggest foes weren't the conservative capitalists, but rather the 'bad ones on the left'. Instead of uniting, the left chose to fight over definitions and over what, in this day and age, would lead to 'real' communism. It seems that's still the case today.

Elaborate, please.

People are people. If you give some people control over other people's stuff, even if the intention is that they'll redistribute it and stop bothering people in the end, they'll end up liking the situation as it is. And then, as happened in pretty much every socialist regime ever, you'll get an authoritarian government that orders people around. You can't fix that, it's human nature. Give a man a stick and he'll beat another man for his goods. Which leads me to:

What's unattainable about something that was essentially the case for most of human history? The relevant issues are "how?" and "is it actually desirable?".

You know, there are people who have observed tribes that still live in what is essentially prehistory. They have extreme homicide rates, with up to a third and probably more of the male population dying of violence perpetrated by other members of the tribe. The more powerful members of the tribe hoard goods, especially those that reveal status - beads, fine weapons - and live in larger and more decorated huts. Men fight over power, women and goods. Essentially, people who live in 'prehistory' - which I assume is what you refer to - live in a tribal society, not a communist one, and within the tribe there are people who lead and people who follow, and they compete for control over the tribe and for control over the goods, and they have something similar to ownership rights, and there are significant differences in material quality of life between them.

Actually, revisionism caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. It also has basically turned most with the exception of Cuba to fascist dictatorships. Just because you call yourself something does not make you it. Castro called himself pro USA and pro democracy at one point.

[United British Union]

What you call freedom, I call privilege. The "freedom" of oppressors is actually the privilege. We must remove all class, race, gender and sexuality privilege from the world. With privilege, we can have no freedom.

I fail to see how my 'freedoms' are 'privileges', where you would like 'freedom'.

I am all for removing class, getting rid of gender, racial, and sexual inequality, I just don't see your distinction between 'privilege' and 'freedom'. both of which you have not defined clearly, only to constrast what my 'freedoms' are to your 'freedoms'.

My Lord-why? Then we would loose our houses, estates, money...

[Vashtanaraada]

If we were all equal, as the Communists wish, then how would it be any good? Who, sirs, would run the government?

So someone ha some sense!

Who normally rules in direct democracy?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I fail to see how my 'freedoms' are 'privileges', where you would like 'freedom'.

I am all for removing class, getting rid of gender, racial, and sexual inequality, I just don't see your distinction between 'privilege' and 'freedom'. both of which you have not defined clearly, only to constrast what my 'freedoms' are to your 'freedoms'.

My Lord-why? Then we would loose our houses, estates, money...

What?