Communist Discussion thread

[Threlizdun]

Really? Which of our proposals actually led to the creation of communist societies? That would be the libertarian socialists. They've helped ensure there has never been a point in history where communism didn't exist. 1) Now which ideology resulted in the systematic destruction of communism in Spain, Ukraine, and Russia? that would be the Leninists.
No, I think it will take tremendous effort; I just don't think totalitarianism and genocide are necessary parts of that effort.
No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution. I do not believe your idea of mass death, continued antogonism, the oppression of one class by another, and the empowerment of the very body communism seeks to destroy is beneficial to the establishment of revolutionary society based on the concept that helping others ultimately leads to helping yourself. I do not think the capitalists will abandon their lifestyle easily. Violence absolutely will occur. There are few revolutions that occur without bloodshed. I am saying that we minimize violence and forsake it altogether once it ceases to be necessary.

1) If you think that communism should have been created immediately in Russia, then you're simply wrong; the Great powers would have destroyed any communist society. Revolution over the whole world needs to be achieved before progressing to communism.

Perhaps. We'll never know now. We could have at least maintained the republic led primarily by the democratic socialist and narodnik parties the people actually wanted in power rather than the Bolshevik coup.

2) There absolutely must be a use of authority in the revolution, if there is not, then we will simply be destroyed by the bourgeois and their state power.

What state? That would cease to exist following the revolution.

3) I never said that the bourgeois cannot be treated equally, but must be integrated into the proletariat. The removal of their means of production would be oppressing them, though.

They wouldn't have it removed; they would just have an equal role in it as everyone else. You have called for the disenfranchisement of the former capitalists before, and I believe you have also called for their extermination.

[Liberaxia]

Elaborate.

The capitalist class is still ultimately subservient to capital, the market, and the state. They exist in a heavily collectivist society that denies the value of the individual and only see value in the capital-producing activity an individual engages in. These social conditions and the disconnect between the natural state of the individual and the overbearing nature of soceity leads to the alienation of the individual. This relation is an inherently oppressive one that must be overcome for humanity to progress. Marx was wrong on looking only to the proletariat to liberate humanity. He believed everyone was alienated but that the proleltariat, as the most alienated, would be the best agents to liberate all of society. He overvemphasized the proletariat. They are essential in liberating humanity, but until we can seek our liberation as a whole there is nothing that will be resolved. The suffering of the capitalist is by no means as extensive as the suffering of the worker, but it is still important. We cannot call ourselves revolutionaries if we do not seek to mitigate all suffering.

That's rather…touching.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) If you think that communism should have been created immediately in Russia, then you're simply wrong; the Great powers would have destroyed any communist society. Revolution over the whole world needs to be achieved before progressing to communism.

Perhaps. We'll never know now. We could have at least maintained the republic led primarily by the democratic socialist and narodnik parties the people actually wanted in power rather than the Bolshevik coup.

2) There absolutely must be a use of authority in the revolution, if there is not, then we will simply be destroyed by the bourgeois and their state power.

What state? That would cease to exist following the revolution.

3) I never said that the bourgeois cannot be treated equally, but must be integrated into the proletariat. The removal of their means of production would be oppressing them, though.

They wouldn't have it removed; they would just have an equal role in it as everyone else. You have called for the disenfranchisement of the former capitalists before, and I believe you have also called for their extermination.

1) The people didn't want them to remain in power; they were very opposed to them because those parties continued the Great War. Why do you think the Red Army had more than the White?

2) If we are not willing to create a state dominated by the proletariat, then the bourgeois will just subvert with capital to create a new one.

3) I have never called for their extermination. They would have their private ownership of it removed, which they would resent immensely.

[Constantinopolis]

No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution.

Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. I see you are very noble and just and honourable.

But you know what happens to people like that, right?

[Liberaxia]

No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution.

Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. I see you are very noble and just and honourable.

But you know what happens to people like that, right?

Who?

[The 93rd Coalition]

Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. I see you are very noble and just and honourable.

But you know what happens to people like that, right?

Who?

Imma vouch for this guy. No idea who that is.

[Constantinopolis]

Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. I see you are very noble and just and honourable.

But you know what happens to people like that, right?

Who?

Well, okay, that was a pop culture reference which many people probably won't get. What I was trying to show was (spoilered because it's a major Game of Thrones plot point)...

A picture of the "good guys" in season 3 of Game of Thrones, who are very noble and just and honourable. At the end of the season they get betrayed and brutally massacred by a group of ex-enemies that they had recently formed an "alliance" with, because they were stupid enough to trust them.

The point is, in any kind of war/revolution/armed conflict, being noble and just and honourable will get you killed.

[Bezombia]

Who?

Well, okay, that was a pop culture reference which many people probably won't get. What I was trying to show was (spoilered because it's a major Game of Thrones plot point)...

A picture of the "good guys" in season 3 of Game of Thrones, who are very noble and just and honourable. At the end of the season they get betrayed and brutally massacred by a group of ex-enemies that they had recently formed an "alliance" with, because they were stupid enough to trust them.

The point is, in any kind of war/revolution/armed conflict, being noble and just and honourable will get you killed.

Are you legitimately suggesting that we should all be cold hearted sadists?

[Constantinopolis]

Well, okay, that was a pop culture reference which many people probably won't get. What I was trying to show was (spoilered because it's a major Game of Thrones plot point)...

A picture of the "good guys" in season 3 of Game of Thrones, who are very noble and just and honourable. At the end of the season they get betrayed and brutally massacred by a group of ex-enemies that they had recently formed an "alliance" with, because they were stupid enough to trust them.

The point is, in any kind of war/revolution/armed conflict, being noble and just and honourable will get you killed.

Are you legitimately suggesting that we should all be cold hearted sadists?

No, I am legitimately suggesting that we should be pragmatic, as opposed to idealistic.

"Sadism" means inflicting pain for the sake of your own pleasure. The choice is not between being sadistic or a starry-eyed idealist. You can be neither. You can be pragmatic.

[Bezombia]

Are you legitimately suggesting that we should all be cold hearted sadists?

No, I am legitimately suggesting that we should be pragmatic, as opposed to idealistic.

"Sadism" means inflicting pain for the sake of your own pleasure. The choice is not between being sadistic or a starry-eyed idealist. You can be neither. You can be pragmatic.

So you're saying that actually looking out for people is "idealistic" and "will get you killed".

Wonderful.

[Constantinopolis]

No, I am legitimately suggesting that we should be pragmatic, as opposed to idealistic.

"Sadism" means inflicting pain for the sake of your own pleasure. The choice is not between being sadistic or a starry-eyed idealist. You can be neither. You can be pragmatic.

So you're saying that actually looking out for people is "idealistic" and "will get you killed".

Wonderful.

...huh...? Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was saying that?

I was arguing against Threlizdun's suggestion that the bourgeoisie (the former capitalists) will not be a problem after the revolution and "should be treated equally". I am saying that if you do that, they will kill you.

[Bezombia]

So you're saying that actually looking out for people is "idealistic" and "will get you killed".

Wonderful.

...huh...? Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was saying that?

I was arguing against Threlizdun's suggestion that the bourgeoisie (the former capitalists) will not be a problem after the revolution and "should be treated equally". I am saying that if you do that, they will kill you.

You see, all the ones that tried to kill us would be dealt with during the revolution

[Occupied Deutschland]

So you're saying that actually looking out for people is "idealistic" and "will get you killed".

Wonderful.

...huh...? Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was saying that?

I was arguing against Threlizdun's suggestion that the bourgeoisie (the former capitalists) will not be a problem after the revolution and "should be treated equally". I am saying that if you do that, they will kill you.

Treat people equally --> They kill you.
Therefore, the bourgoise cannot be treated equally.

It's a good thing unequal treatment doesn't spawn resentment and violence.

[Distruzio]

You don't have to be a follower of Marxism to read Marx's books.

Indeed. While I disagree with the man most vehemently I can't deny that, upon reading some of his works, I find myself in awe of the man's intellect.

--don't tell my professors at LvMI know I said that. It might not go over well with some of them.

[Liberaxia]

...huh...? Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was saying that?

I was arguing against Threlizdun's suggestion that the bourgeoisie (the former capitalists) will not be a problem after the revolution and "should be treated equally". I am saying that if you do that, they will kill you.

Treat people equally --> They kill you.
Therefore, the bourgoise cannot be treated equally.

It's a good thing unequal treatment doesn't spawn resentment and violence.

Communists totally living up to their idea.

[Constantinopolis]

...huh...? Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was saying that?

I was arguing against Threlizdun's suggestion that the bourgeoisie (the former capitalists) will not be a problem after the revolution and "should be treated equally". I am saying that if you do that, they will kill you.

You see, all the ones that tried to kill us would be dealt with during the revolution

Fair enough. So we may just be arguing semantics about what point in time is defined as "after the revolution". If "after the revolution" is defined as "after the former capitalists no longer pose any threat", then of course at that point they are (by definition) no longer a problem, and should be treated equally.

But I understood Threlizdun's suggestion as saying that we should extend a general amnesty and ignore past wrongs as soon as armed conflict has ceased.

Treat people equally --> They kill you.
Therefore, the bourgoise cannot be treated equally.

It's a good thing unequal treatment doesn't spawn resentment and violence.

See above. I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about the former capitalists immediately after they have been overthrown. I'm pretty sure that they will have plenty of resentment against the new socialist government no matter what we do.

Part of my whole point is that if you are a communist and achieve any measure of political success, the capitalists will hate you and try to destroy you. There is NOTHING you can do to make them stop hating you or stop trying to crush you. All you can do is defeat them when they inevitably try to crush you.

[Constantinopolis]

Communists totally living up to their idea.

"Can There Be Equality Between the Exploited and the Exploiter?" by Vladimir Lenin

We support equality, of course, but not in the absolutist sense of "always treat everyone equally at all times in all circumstances with no exceptions". Armed conflict (such as a revolution), and its immediate aftermath, is an exception.

[Lithuanian Empire]

1932 is not even close.
In fact, the Soviet union was slowly declining all the way from 1946, but only in the 1990s it started to hurt.

Declining? In what way? By pretty much any measure you choose, the 1950s and 60s - and possibly also the very early 70s - were the period when the USSR was at its peak (best economic growth, greatest technological advancements, still-low-but-rapidly-rising living standards, and so on).

The problem faced by the USSR in 1985 was that it had begun to stagnate, with very low economic growth and a very slow pace of progress. By comparison, the United States in 1932 was doing much worse than merely stagnating - its economy was rapidly shrinking.

That's why I said that other countries had faced much worse and survived. The pre-Gorbachev USSR was mostly just standing still. Other countries had periods when they were rapidly moving backwards, which is worse, but they survived.

Actually, the point that the USSR was declining from 1946 is because of the Cold War. The USSR already had problems in feeding their population, now they also had to compete in an arms/space race against USA. In 1950s and 60s, it didn't really show any symptoms, but the final blow was in the 80s, when the oil prices started to fall. Around 50% of Soviet economy was dependent on oil exports, the oil money pretty much kept the nation alive.

[Old Tyrannia]

No, I've said that the bourgeoisie are also oppressed and alienated (something which Marx would definitely agree with if you ever got around to reading his work) and should be treated equally following the revolution.

Uh-huh. Sure. Okay. I see you are very noble and just and honourable.

But you know what happens to people like that, right?

The Starks are obviously monarchists, hence why Lord Eddard was so concerned with the legitimate succession, and why Robb was proclaimed King in the North, not Chairman of the Presidium of the Democratic People's Republic of the North. You commies can't claim them! The Brotherhood Without Banners is the closest thing to communism in Westeros.

[Bezombia]

You see, all the ones that tried to kill us would be dealt with during the revolution

Fair enough. So we may just be arguing semantics about what point in time is defined as "after the revolution". If "after the revolution" is defined as "after the former capitalists no longer pose any threat", then of course at that point they are (by definition) no longer a problem, and should be treated equally.

But I understood Threlizdun's suggestion as saying that we should extend a general amnesty and ignore past wrongs as soon as armed conflict has ceased.

Here's the part that I don't think you're getting.
The revolution? It's carried out by the bourgeois, not the proletariat. As Marx said it would happen, the bourgeois would react violently to the proletariat trying to take away their power and money. The revolution would have to be shut down by the proletariat in order for a communist society to truly take hold.

[Bolnoa]

"Revolution isn't a bed full of roses"-Fidel Castro

[Bolnoa]

While discussing Communism I know this infamous character may turn a few heads but why not! Let us discuss this guy!

Personally he's one of my personal inspirations for self-liberation as well as a small dose of Titoism in my life, Plus he's the last WW2 Allied leader to do. May he rest in peace.

[Liberaxia]

While discussing Communism I know this infamous character may turn a few heads but why not! Let us discuss this guy!

(Image)

Personally he's one of my personal inspirations for self-liberation as well as a small dose of Titoism in my life, Plus he's the last WW2 Allied leader to do. May he rest in peace.

Probably the best of the communists.

[United Marxist Nations]

While discussing Communism I know this infamous character may turn a few heads but why not! Let us discuss this guy!

(Image)

Personally he's one of my personal inspirations for self-liberation as well as a small dose of Titoism in my life, Plus he's the last WW2 Allied leader to do. May he rest in peace.

Probably the best of the communists.

He was a bit imperialist.

[Old Tyrannia]

While discussing Communism I know this infamous character may turn a few heads but why not! Let us discuss this guy!

(Image)

Personally he's one of my personal inspirations for self-liberation as well as a small dose of Titoism in my life, Plus he's the last WW2 Allied leader to do. May he rest in peace.

Traitor to king and country.