Communist-Capitalist Discussion

[Obets]

Marx's personality was not such that he would broker a disagreement here, especially not with the guy who cowrote nearly everything with.
I suppose the question here is: for someone who seems to care so deeply about the matter of Marx, why do you disregard the fellow so callously? As a group of wise individuals once said: "if you want to be my lover, you've got to get with my friends."

I was being sarcastic there.Offcourse I adore Marx and I properly know that he was not a man to give up his ideals for the sake of money.But yes,I never knew Marx personally,so I can not say why he didn't forbade Engels from writing such a thing,perhaps he did,who knows ? But whatevrr the reason might be,the point is the creation of a stateless society is definetely not one of the major goals of Marxism,t never was.

I agree with you, yet I also agree with the others because Marx proposed the idea of a unified global "communal" society, which would require the abolition of the state. While he never called for the abolition of the state, some of his ideals would lead to that happening.

[The New California Republic]

[...] the creation of a stateless society is definetely not one of the major goals of Marxism, it never was.

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for asserting this.

In fact, if anything you are needing to cut out contraindicatory evidence in order to preserve your position, which is not a good sign at all...

[The Dodo Republic]

Communism=POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY


Ok I will leave now

[And Spaces]

Marx's personality was not such that he would broker a disagreement here, especially not with the guy who cowrote nearly everything with.
I suppose the question here is: for someone who seems to care so deeply about the matter of Marx, why do you disregard the fellow so callously? As a group of wise individuals once said: "if you want to be my lover, you've got to get with my friends."

I was being sarcastic there.Offcourse I adore Marx and I properly know that he was not a man to give up his ideals for the sake of money.But yes,I never knew Marx personally,so I can not say why he didn't forbade Engels from writing such a thing,perhaps he did,who knows ? But whatevrr the reason might be,the point is the creation of a stateless society is definetely not one of the major goals of Marxism,t never was.

Alright. That's understandable. It was in his views but I know it wasn't a goal of Marxism.

[Barlyy]

I'm fine with a large welfare state along with some regulations and progressive tax rates, but the state should not hold a monopoly on all sectors. In some sectors, nationalization is acceptable. That's my honest opinion

What about having nationalization for some sectors, as you said, and a market of regulated cooperatives for the rest ? So no more private property of the means of production, but neither a soviet-like completely planned economy. A mixed economy between state-owned public services and workers-owned cooperatives.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd be fine with that.

[Kubra]

Marx's personality was not such that he would broker a disagreement here, especially not with the guy who cowrote nearly everything with.
I suppose the question here is: for someone who seems to care so deeply about the matter of Marx, why do you disregard the fellow so callously? As a group of wise individuals once said: "if you want to be my lover, you've got to get with my friends."

I was being sarcastic there.Offcourse I adore Marx and I properly know that he was not a man to give up his ideals for the sake of money.But yes,I never knew Marx personally,so I can not say why he didn't forbade Engels from writing such a thing,perhaps he did,who knows ? But whatevrr the reason might be,the point is the creation of a stateless society is definetely not one of the major goals of Marxism,t never was.

Well let me tell ya why: because he fuckin loved engels and loved this shit he wrote. Lesser beings such as us can only hope for such a bromance in our lives.
In any case, the point still stands: communism is *stateless*. not even Lenin himself doubts such a thing. It is worth noting he was quite a fervent reader of Engels.

[The New California Republic]

I was being sarcastic there.Offcourse I adore Marx and I properly know that he was not a man to give up his ideals for the sake of money.But yes,I never knew Marx personally,so I can not say why he didn't forbade Engels from writing such a thing,perhaps he did,who knows ? But whatevrr the reason might be,the point is the creation of a stateless society is definetely not one of the major goals of Marxism,t never was.

Well let me tell ya why: because he fuckin loved engels and loved this shit he wrote. Lesser beings such as us can only hope for such a bromance in our lives.
In any case, the point still stands: communism is *stateless*. not even Lenin himself doubts such a thing. It is worth noting he was quite a fervent reader of Engels.

I don't think Sannyamathland is going to back down. We have presented the evidence to show that what Engels wrote is valid in Marxism and Communism, that the end of the state was one of the goals, but with much handwaving and throwing Engels to the wolves he has dismissed it all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Socialist States of Ludistan]

Not much to say but a general "keep it cool, people" and also:

Socialist States of Ludistan, please stop multi-posting so much. You can reply to more than one post in one post by using the "quote" button to copy-paste someone else's post into the one you are already writing.

Thread opened.

Didn’t know that multi-posting wasn’t allowed, but thanks for the heads-up, I’ll try to stop.

[Duvniask]

Even in his later years the end of the state was one of Marx's goals, there is literally nothing in his writings that repudiates that view, so I'm not entirely sure where you are getting this information from.

Never was the end of a state was one of Marx's goals.His goal was the creation of a classless society,without private property,and a temporary dictatorship of the proleteriat.From where are you getting these information from ?

In The German Ideology Marx explicitly says that "the State is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests".

And in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx mirrors this sentiment, i.e. that the state is a tool for the ruling class: "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie".

So put 2 and 2 together and you will see that Marx was always calling for the abolition of the state, at least in the Marxian sense of it being an organization that represents the political rule of the dominant class.

[Stylan]

Even in his later years the end of the state was one of Marx's goals, there is literally nothing in his writings that repudiates that view, so I'm not entirely sure where you are getting this information from.

Never was the end of a state was one of Marx's goals.His goal was the creation of a classless society,without private property,and a temporary dictatorship of the proleteriat.From where are you getting these information from ?

Yes, it was. Full communism would be a classless, statless, moneyless society. Read Marx plz

[Stylan]

I'm fine with a large welfare state along with some regulations and progressive tax rates, but the state should not hold a monopoly on all sectors. In some sectors, nationalization is acceptable. That's my honest opinion

Socialism isn't state monopoly on industry. That would be part of the transition to socialism, but that isn't socialism.

[Stylan]

Anywho, my stance is and always has been that capitalism is in its final hours. By 2050 we will live either in a Fascist world, or a socialist world.

Obviously, socialism is the correct choice.

[National Capitalist United States]

By 2050 we will live either in a Fascist world

I'd say it will be more like brave new world considering how woke the companies are right now.

But that's assuming capitalism will die in the next decades, which I doubt.

[Sannyamathland]

Never was the end of a state was one of Marx's goals.His goal was the creation of a classless society,without private property,and a temporary dictatorship of the proleteriat.From where are you getting these information from ?

Yes, it was. Full communism would be a classless, statless, moneyless society. Read Marx plz

Again ! No my friend,I have read enough of Marx to come to this conclusion that the abolishment of the state is not one of the major goals of a Communist society.I have said this once,I am saying this again.It's true that Marx did give a hint on the absence of the state in the 'Communist Manifesto',but he never explicitly mentioned such a thing as one of the main principles of Communism.Marx's definition of a state has always been quiet vague,and yes,he did considered the state as a tool of bourgeois repression,but he also considered the forceful abolition of the state as anarchy.

[Union of Workers Republics]

Yes, it was. Full communism would be a classless, statless, moneyless society. Read Marx plz

Again ! No my friend,I have read enough of Marx to come to this conclusion that the abolishment of the state is not one of the major goals of a Communist society.I have said this once,I am saying this again.It's true that Marx did give a hint on the absence of the state in the 'Communist Manifesto',but he never explicitly mentioned such a thing as one of the main principles of Communism.Marx's definition of a state has always been quiet vague,and yes,he did considered the state as a tool of bourgeois repression,but he also considered the forceful abolition of the state as anarchy.

Comrade, read State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin. Under Communism, the state shall wither away, this is spoken of in all orthodox Marxist literature, including Marx and Engels' writing.

[Neutraligon]

This topic is way too broad. If you have something more specific you want to discuss please update your OP.

[Ayytaly]

Communism is just bureaucratic capitalism. The Castros, the USSR Politburo and the Kims are defiitely filthy rich. Xi Jinping definitely carries millions in his pocket, and it's not the artificially-reduced Yuan.

My point is that anyone that supports Communism ultimately supports crypto-Capitalistic kleptocracies. It's Animal Farm.all over again. At least with Capitalism you can topple down a corporation if you can garner enough people (say, 10 million) to stop consuming their products.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Communism is just bureaucratic capitalism. The Castros, the USSR Politburo and the Kims are defiitely filthy rich. Xi Jinping definitely carries millions in his pocket, and it's not the artificially-reduced Yuan.

My point is that anyone that supports Communism ultimately supports crypto-Capitalistic kleptocracies. It's Animal Farm.all over again. At least with Capitalism you can topple down a corporation if you can garner enough people (say, 10 million) to stop consuming their products.

Two words: Libertarian Leftism.

[Rightus]

This should be a fun read.

[North Washington Republic]

Hello everyone, I am a classic liberal, also known as a capitalist. Capitalism is a pretty mainstream ideology, and what I mean by that is that most people in the world follow it.
But in my time playing NS I have noticed there’s a lot of communists too, and what actually makes me happy is that a lot of them also are a part of the communist party in their country.
However, I sometimes sadly have a hard time understanding the minds of communists, you see, I’m from Denmark, and here we don’t see homeless people around every corner, so I don’t really see the oppression that most communists say there is by big corporations, I only see oppression by the state, and that’s on TV.
So I just want to have a talk with some communists, and do my very best to try to understand their point of view, and I hope you’ll try to understand mine too, however that’s not a necessity.
Fellow capitalists are of course allowed too, just be nice, the same goes for the communists.

Well I consider myself a capitalist and would most likely belong to Venstre if I lived in Denmark. I would say I’m further to the right that most on this site. To answer your question, places such as the United States doesn’t have a strong social safety net like many countries in Europe have. But I do understand the point that your making. Generally speaking, it is possible to have a free market economy with a strong social safety net. But communists view that capitalism is an absolute evil, and it is incompatible with a just society.

[Ayytaly]

Communism is just bureaucratic capitalism. The Castros, the USSR Politburo and the Kims are defiitely filthy rich. Xi Jinping definitely carries millions in his pocket, and it's not the artificially-reduced Yuan.

My point is that anyone that supports Communism ultimately supports crypto-Capitalistic kleptocracies. It's Animal Farm.all over again. At least with Capitalism you can topple down a corporation if you can garner enough people (say, 10 million) to stop consuming their products.

Two words: Libertarian Leftism.

And that is...?

[Kenzo-Cyprii]

Two words: Libertarian Leftism.

And that is...?

Left-libertarianism, also known as egalitarian libertarianism, left-wing libertarianism or social libertarianism, is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that stresses both individual freedom and social equality.

-Says Wikipedia.

[Ayytaly]

And that is...?

Left-libertarianism, also known as egalitarian libertarianism, left-wing libertarianism or social libertarianism, is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that stresses both individual freedom and social equality.

-Says Wikipedia.

That seems rather contradictory. If my individual freedom involves being rich, then I am not equal to others. Yet should my wealth be taken away and dispersed amongst the less-fortunate against my will, my freedom has been a lie. Ergo, one can't be free and equal at the same time in the modern tenets of society.

[Kenzo-Cyprii]

Left-libertarianism, also known as egalitarian libertarianism, left-wing libertarianism or social libertarianism, is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that stresses both individual freedom and social equality.

-Says Wikipedia.

Ergo, one can't be free and equal at the same time in the modern tenets of society.

Eh... bit of a stretch there. At least from my stance.

[Odreria]

capitalism is wiggity wiggity wack