Purple Rats wrote:For the fascist in our country, everyone who does not agree with them, is communist.
For the communist in my country, everyone who does not agree with them, is fascist.
Advertisement
by Rojava Free State » Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:37 am
Rojava Free State wrote:Listen yall. I'm only gonna say it once but I want you to remember it. This ain't a world fit for good men. It seems like you gotta be monstrous just to make it. Gotta have a little bit of darkness within you just to survive. You gotta stoop low everyday it seems like. Stoop all the way down to the devil in these times. And then one day you look in the mirror and you realize that you ain't you anymore. You're just another monster, and thanks to your actions, someone else will eventually become as warped and twisted as you. Never forget that the best of us are just the best of a bad lot. Being at the top of a pile of feces doesn't make you anything but shit like the rest. Never forget that.
by Shanghai industrial complex » Wed Apr 15, 2020 7:30 pm
Mossat wrote:Shanghai industrial complex wrote:
Your description is obviously not comprehensive.The Manifesto of the Communist Party is very clear
1.Democracy and freedom.The country is ruled by the people, and the laborer owns the means of production,Eliminate capitalists.
2.Replacing private ownership with public ownership.Social welfare and state-owned enterprises are only part of the public ownership society
3.Class struggle and violent revolution.The communists will not compromise in exterminating the capitalists
People get rid of the shackles of labor and employment system to gain freedom. People are no longer worried about losing their jobs, they are no longer afraid to lose their jobs, and they are even willing to sell their souls for money.Everyone will get enough material and education. To do his best and favorite job, but everyone has to work.Extermination of religion.Democracy, freedom, science and Trinity are indispensable.
The reason why Marxism is a utopia is that the present social productivity and cultural level are far from being reached.Because now we have to rely on capital to produce
At what point does the leadership class become obsolete? Understanding that human beings with the intellectual freedom to produce the much talked about Marxist utopia are individuals that do not operate on hive mind instinct, someone is going to have to lead them into the communist future. At which point does that leadership class (which is exactly what it is, a social class in a classless society) decide "okay, I've done enough. Time to re-integrate into the workers as one of them. Time to abdicate all of my political power."
Time has proven, again and again, that the communist "leaders" are communists in name only. They attain political power, they keep their political power, and the context of the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat changes from one of economic capital to political capital as the leadership class becomes the Marxist definition of a "capitalist" but with political power. One class has all the power, the other class is shackled by their powerlessness. The Chinese "communists" are perfectly content to have their Proletariat in the supine position they have been forced into.
by Risottia » Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:14 am
Mossat wrote:At what point does the leadership class become obsolete?
by Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Fri Apr 17, 2020 1:18 pm
New Bremerton wrote:A failed and widely discredited ideology whose legacy is poverty, mass starvation, cultural suicide and genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape, infanticide, torture, mass murder, the dismantling of longstanding cultural and political institutions, state capitalism, greed, corruption, megalomania, ultranationalism, racism, homophobia, imperialism, neocolonialism, broken promises, outright lies, shameless propaganda, face-saving coverups, deadly viral pandemics, entitled, elitist, conservative, upper-class snobbery and the accompanying oppression and subjugation of the working poor, and fascism.
Communism is what China used to practice. Fascism is its legacy.
Also the official ideology of a group of rag-tag murderers and terrorists in Malaya and Sarawak during the Cold War, and drug lords and terrorists in Colombia.
An ideology that seeks to confiscate all of my property and see me and my family executed for being "capitalist roaders", "running dogs of Western imperialists" and "bourgeois reactionaries".
News: BREAKING NEWS: Unceremoniously, USSR officially departs from the European Union 2 years before schedule
by San Marlindo » Sat Apr 18, 2020 8:32 pm
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:So des[ote my clear pattern of opposition to the current Chinese regime, there is one particular subset of it that always bothered me, and that is when people blame "communism" for its woes.
This strikes me as weird. Most of the world doesn't take China's word for being a "people's republic," so why do they take its word for being "communist?"
Karl Marx, in the book in which he invented the word "communist," claimed that capitalism was so exploitative it would collapse in on itself, paving the way for collective ownership of the means of production. Doesn't this mean that, since the Bolsheviks overthrew an autocracy, ant the Chinese communist party seized power in a civil war, while the USA has capitalists getting rich enough to buy politicians' loyalty on behalf of non-capitalistic policies, that the USA is closer to communism than China or the Soviet Union ever were, while none of those three quite count as communist?
And if Karl Marx's definition doesn't count, by what standard do the rest of us get to redefine a word that was never ours to redefine?
"Cold, analytical, materialistic thinking tends to throttle the urge to imagination." - Michael Chekhov
by Rojava Free State » Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:24 am
San Marlindo wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:So des[ote my clear pattern of opposition to the current Chinese regime, there is one particular subset of it that always bothered me, and that is when people blame "communism" for its woes.
This strikes me as weird. Most of the world doesn't take China's word for being a "people's republic," so why do they take its word for being "communist?"
Karl Marx, in the book in which he invented the word "communist," claimed that capitalism was so exploitative it would collapse in on itself, paving the way for collective ownership of the means of production. Doesn't this mean that, since the Bolsheviks overthrew an autocracy, ant the Chinese communist party seized power in a civil war, while the USA has capitalists getting rich enough to buy politicians' loyalty on behalf of non-capitalistic policies, that the USA is closer to communism than China or the Soviet Union ever were, while none of those three quite count as communist?
And if Karl Marx's definition doesn't count, by what standard do the rest of us get to redefine a word that was never ours to redefine?
Most Cold War era socialist regimes that built institutions modeled after those of the Soviet Union used the pretext of communism - here broadly interpreted to mean the Soviet system, which Marxist purists in the West argue was not in fact communism - to justify the extreme centralization of power. The PRC is no exception. In that sense it is no different from the old regimes in Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, and the other Warsaw Pact states. The overarching totalitarian bureaucracy, the obsession with documentation and legalism, the Stasi/Cheka esque secret police network, and the overemphasis on militant nationalism are all inherited from the Soviet model. Even the red and gold hammer and sickle iconography of Soviet origin have become national symbols of the PRC and CCP.
While it has evolved into its own beast, the PRC has its roots in the Soviet model, and that legacy continues today. I like to compare how the Red Chinese system has evolved to the evolution of the SKS rifle: a weapon of Soviet origin, originally built along the lines of Soviet military doctrine and philosophy, assembled in China with Soviet parts and under the instruction of Soviet technicians. Then the Soviet parts and technicians are removed from the equation, and substituted with Chinese parts, some detail Chinese modifications, and Chinese technicians just as skilled as their Soviet counterparts. In time the Chinese version of the product becomes unique in its own right, but at the end of the day it’s just a variation of a Soviet weapon built for the same purpose.
It is the PRC that is the true heir to Lenin and Stalin, not modern Russia, which has overthrown the Soviet system.
Rojava Free State wrote:Listen yall. I'm only gonna say it once but I want you to remember it. This ain't a world fit for good men. It seems like you gotta be monstrous just to make it. Gotta have a little bit of darkness within you just to survive. You gotta stoop low everyday it seems like. Stoop all the way down to the devil in these times. And then one day you look in the mirror and you realize that you ain't you anymore. You're just another monster, and thanks to your actions, someone else will eventually become as warped and twisted as you. Never forget that the best of us are just the best of a bad lot. Being at the top of a pile of feces doesn't make you anything but shit like the rest. Never forget that.
by Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Tue Apr 21, 2020 9:18 am
San Marlindo wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:So des[ote my clear pattern of opposition to the current Chinese regime, there is one particular subset of it that always bothered me, and that is when people blame "communism" for its woes.
This strikes me as weird. Most of the world doesn't take China's word for being a "people's republic," so why do they take its word for being "communist?"
Karl Marx, in the book in which he invented the word "communist," claimed that capitalism was so exploitative it would collapse in on itself, paving the way for collective ownership of the means of production. Doesn't this mean that, since the Bolsheviks overthrew an autocracy, ant the Chinese communist party seized power in a civil war, while the USA has capitalists getting rich enough to buy politicians' loyalty on behalf of non-capitalistic policies, that the USA is closer to communism than China or the Soviet Union ever were, while none of those three quite count as communist?
And if Karl Marx's definition doesn't count, by what standard do the rest of us get to redefine a word that was never ours to redefine?
Most Cold War era socialist regimes that built institutions modeled after those of the Soviet Union used the pretext of communism - here broadly interpreted to mean the Soviet system, which Marxist purists in the West argue was not in fact communism - to justify the extreme centralization of power. The PRC is no exception. In that sense it is no different from the old regimes in Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, and the other Warsaw Pact states. The overarching totalitarian bureaucracy, the obsession with documentation and legalism, the Stasi/Cheka esque secret police network, and the overemphasis on militant nationalism are all inherited from the Soviet model. Even the red and gold hammer and sickle iconography of Soviet origin have become national symbols of the PRC and CCP.
While it has evolved into its own beast, the PRC has its roots in the Soviet model, and that legacy continues today. I like to compare how the Red Chinese system has evolved to the evolution of the SKS rifle: a weapon of Soviet origin, originally built along the lines of Soviet military doctrine and philosophy, assembled in China with Soviet parts and under the instruction of Soviet technicians. Then the Soviet parts and technicians are removed from the equation, and substituted with Chinese parts, some detail Chinese modifications, and Chinese technicians just as skilled as their Soviet counterparts. In time the Chinese version of the product becomes unique in its own right, but at the end of the day it’s just a variation of a Soviet weapon built for the same purpose.
It is the PRC that is the true heir to Lenin and Stalin, not modern Russia, which has overthrown the Soviet system.
News: BREAKING NEWS: Unceremoniously, USSR officially departs from the European Union 2 years before schedule
by Shanghai industrial complex » Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:24 pm
Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:San Marlindo wrote:
Most Cold War era socialist regimes that built institutions modeled after those of the Soviet Union used the pretext of communism - here broadly interpreted to mean the Soviet system, which Marxist purists in the West argue was not in fact communism - to justify the extreme centralization of power. The PRC is no exception. In that sense it is no different from the old regimes in Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, and the other Warsaw Pact states. The overarching totalitarian bureaucracy, the obsession with documentation and legalism, the Stasi/Cheka esque secret police network, and the overemphasis on militant nationalism are all inherited from the Soviet model. Even the red and gold hammer and sickle iconography of Soviet origin have become national symbols of the PRC and CCP.
While it has evolved into its own beast, the PRC has its roots in the Soviet model, and that legacy continues today. I like to compare how the Red Chinese system has evolved to the evolution of the SKS rifle: a weapon of Soviet origin, originally built along the lines of Soviet military doctrine and philosophy, assembled in China with Soviet parts and under the instruction of Soviet technicians. Then the Soviet parts and technicians are removed from the equation, and substituted with Chinese parts, some detail Chinese modifications, and Chinese technicians just as skilled as their Soviet counterparts. In time the Chinese version of the product becomes unique in its own right, but at the end of the day it’s just a variation of a Soviet weapon built for the same purpose.
It is the PRC that is the true heir to Lenin and Stalin, not modern Russia, which has overthrown the Soviet system.
The thing is, though, the PRC isn't even remotely communist in practice. It acts only so much like the USSR and its satellites; it's a totalitarian government that claims to be socialist. While the USSR and its satellites were 'socialist' in practice, the PRC allows private corporations, private enterprise, private property, and even has a stock exchange. The PRC is at the least state capitalist and at the most corporate fascist.
by Hammer Britannia » Tue Apr 21, 2020 11:28 pm
by Duvniask » Wed Apr 22, 2020 1:45 am
Hammer Britannia wrote:The definition of Communism changes about as frequently as the leaders who supposedly wish to achieve it
In other words, there is no answer at this point
by The Archregimancy » Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:32 am
by Carvio Saikesenassia » Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:42 am
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:48 am
Hammer Britannia wrote:The definition of Communism changes about as frequently as the leaders who supposedly wish to achieve it
In other words, there is no answer at this point
Carvio Saikesenassia wrote:honest question, does that even matter at this point? maybe im just weary of cap vs soc/com debates but debating """the true definition""" of big tent ideologies is so wasteful that its better to talk about more 'disaggregated' policy instead
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Carvio Saikesenassia » Wed Apr 22, 2020 2:52 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Hammer Britannia wrote:The definition of Communism changes about as frequently as the leaders who supposedly wish to achieve it
In other words, there is no answer at this point
What makes any definition other than that of whomever invented the word legitimate?Carvio Saikesenassia wrote:honest question, does that even matter at this point? maybe im just weary of cap vs soc/com debates but debating """the true definition""" of big tent ideologies is so wasteful that its better to talk about more 'disaggregated' policy instead
All else held constant, if someone gets a key definition wrong, they're either ignorant, stupid, or dishonest, at least compared to the rest of us. This tells us to whom not to listen, at least on the most closely related key issues.
by Duvniask » Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:04 am
Carvio Saikesenassia wrote:honest question, does that even matter at this point? maybe im just weary of cap vs soc/com debates but debating """the true definition""" of big tent ideologies is so wasteful that its better to talk about more 'disaggregated' policy instead
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:12 am
Carvio Saikesenassia wrote:LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:What makes any definition other than that of whomever invented the word legitimate?
All else held constant, if someone gets a key definition wrong, they're either ignorant, stupid, or dishonest, at least compared to the rest of us. This tells us to whom not to listen, at least on the most closely related key issues.
when said key definition refers to a big tent movement then it sort of loses its meaning imo. bad equivalent but its like trying to define "what constitutes a legitimate definition of being a Democrat?" when the DNC is broken down by at least three major vertents
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Green October Z » Tue May 05, 2020 1:38 pm
by Aya Democratic Republic » Tue May 05, 2020 3:47 pm
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:So des[ote my clear pattern of opposition to the current Chinese regime, there is one particular subset of it that always bothered me, and that is when people blame "communism" for its woes.
This strikes me as weird. Most of the world doesn't take China's word for being a "people's republic," so why do they take its word for being "communist?"
Karl Marx, in the book in which he invented the word "communist," claimed that capitalism was so exploitative it would collapse in on itself, paving the way for collective ownership of the means of production. Doesn't this mean that, since the Bolsheviks overthrew an autocracy, ant the Chinese communist party seized power in a civil war, while the USA has capitalists getting rich enough to buy politicians' loyalty on behalf of non-capitalistic policies, that the USA is closer to communism than China or the Soviet Union ever were, while none of those three quite count as communist?
Karl Marx’s Definition Is The Definition. The Reason Communism & Socialism Got Redefined Was Because Of Stalin’s Regime In The Soviet Union Which Is Not Socialism As He Blamed The Kulaks (Poor People Who Became Rich Enough To Grow Crops) For The Poor Management Of Crops Which Wasn’t True Stalin Just Implemented Rules That Made Him Stay In Power. He Took The Kulaks Crops Back To Moscow. Large Uprisings Went Across The Soviet Union Which Were Taken Down By The Red Army And Almost Killed As Many People As The Nazis Did. Stalin Redefined Communism As Stalinism And Replaced Socialistic Ideas With Just Ideas To Keep Him In Power. So We Really Have No Say In Redefining Communism Because Of This Large Misunderstanding.
And if Karl Marx's definition doesn't count, by what standard do the rest of us get to redefine a word that was never ours to redefine?
by Rojava Free State » Tue May 05, 2020 5:09 pm
Green October Z wrote:Seeing as how my parents fled communism and told me all about it, I would say that communism is oppression, starvation, extreme human rights abuses, poverty, and a lot of violence. It is darkness with no light in sight.
Rojava Free State wrote:Listen yall. I'm only gonna say it once but I want you to remember it. This ain't a world fit for good men. It seems like you gotta be monstrous just to make it. Gotta have a little bit of darkness within you just to survive. You gotta stoop low everyday it seems like. Stoop all the way down to the devil in these times. And then one day you look in the mirror and you realize that you ain't you anymore. You're just another monster, and thanks to your actions, someone else will eventually become as warped and twisted as you. Never forget that the best of us are just the best of a bad lot. Being at the top of a pile of feces doesn't make you anything but shit like the rest. Never forget that.
by Rojava Free State » Tue May 05, 2020 5:12 pm
Rojava Free State wrote:Listen yall. I'm only gonna say it once but I want you to remember it. This ain't a world fit for good men. It seems like you gotta be monstrous just to make it. Gotta have a little bit of darkness within you just to survive. You gotta stoop low everyday it seems like. Stoop all the way down to the devil in these times. And then one day you look in the mirror and you realize that you ain't you anymore. You're just another monster, and thanks to your actions, someone else will eventually become as warped and twisted as you. Never forget that the best of us are just the best of a bad lot. Being at the top of a pile of feces doesn't make you anything but shit like the rest. Never forget that.
by Mirjt » Tue May 05, 2020 9:13 pm
by Strahcoin » Mon May 11, 2020 12:47 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Eahland, Ethel mermania, Eurocom, Hidrandia, Likhinia, Shrillland, Spirit of Hope, Tarsonis, The Black Forrest, Valles Marineris Mining co, Valyxias
Advertisement