| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| sugar wrote: | | Muso wrote: | | Communism is the ultimate authoritarian wet dream. All 'lite' forms of it still have totalitarianism as the logical conclusion of their systems. |
the end point of communism is state-less. Totalitarianism requires a state. |
Dream on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sugar
Guru
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Prenj wrote: | | sugar wrote: | | Muso wrote: | | Communism is the ultimate authoritarian wet dream. All 'lite' forms of it still have totalitarianism as the logical conclusion of their systems. |
the end point of communism is state-less. Totalitarianism requires a state. |
Dream on. |
I'm sorry if Marx disagrees with your definition of Marxism.
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sugar wrote: | | Prenj wrote: | | sugar wrote: | | Muso wrote: | | Communism is the ultimate authoritarian wet dream. All 'lite' forms of it still have totalitarianism as the logical conclusion of their systems. |
the end point of communism is state-less. Totalitarianism requires a state. |
Dream on. |
I'm sorry if Marx disagrees with your definition of Marxism. |
Im sorry if you think your revolushon starts with preaching on off the wall section of obscure minor linux distro related forums...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sikpuppy
n00b
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 23
Location: Central Coast, NSW
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Surely more socialists in the world now than communists? And I doubt any communists would be on this forum....only socialists? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erm67
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 130
Location: somewhere in Berlusconia.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Communism is like Java, wonderful and perfect in theory, in practice doesn't work or is full of problems 
_________________
Truck!!
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1101
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Prenj wrote: | | sugar wrote: | | I'm sorry if Marx disagrees with your definition of Marxism. |
Im sorry if you think your revolushon starts with preaching on off the wall section of obscure minor linux distro related forums... |
Another communist oxymoron: communist revolution.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sikpuppy
n00b
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 23
Location: Central Coast, NSW
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aidanjt wrote: | | ... communist revolution. |
There are no communist revolutions, only revolting communists perhaps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erm67
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 130
Location: somewhere in Berlusconia.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sikpuppy wrote: | | aidanjt wrote: | | ... communist revolution. |
There are no communist revolutions, only revolting communists perhaps. |
That is exactly what the Francoists claimed during the Spanish civil war ......
_________________
Truck!!
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1486
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sugar wrote: | | Muso wrote: | | Communism is the ultimate authoritarian wet dream. All 'lite' forms of it still have totalitarianism as the logical conclusion of their systems. |
the end point of communism is state-less. Totalitarianism requires a state. |
Yeah, right after the magic anarchy swoops down with her magic wand of state-less-ness and removes all the trappings of totalitarianism and the special ruling class that have been building up for decades and decades in order to force absolute egalitarianism on people.
Can you give us a surviving real-world example of statelessness emerging from communism? The Paris Commune that lasted 2 months and vanished in a puff of anarchy smoke (and wasn't even national-level to begin with)? China, perhaps?
_________________
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel INGSOC.
-- Headline of a document on Winston Smith's terminal in his cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, seen briefly in the background in one scene of the movie rendition of Nineteen Eighty-Four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q-collective
Advocate
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 2054
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To explain the context of what is meant with "stateless" society under communism, I'll quote myself from one of my blogposts on Revleft:
| Quote: | I don't see where the supposed contradiction between democracy and the abolition of value comes from? Surely to abolish capitalism, the working class must constitute itself as a class for its own (something that transcends the mere interdependency relationship in regards to capital that Zanth was talking about, that is: to transcend its existance as a mere slave class), form itself into a potential ruling class and then take over political power by abolishing the capitalist political power (that is, its state) and putting its own political hegemony (its own "state") in place.
Democracy plays a key part in this process as the struggle for democracy forms the class, is the engine for its self-emancipation as a collective and therefore of every individual.
After the political seizure of power indeed the main task is to overcome and abolish the law of value we inherited from the old economy. And while the main capitalists will have ceased to exist as a class, as the main means of production have been socialised, there will still be other classes: petit-bourgeoisie and middle strata which hold certain monopolies on skills and knowledge. These layers can only be assimilated into the working class part by part. Socialism, being the transition from the old society ruled by value to the new society ruled by planning of the free association of producers (that is, communism), is therefore still a class society, be it one that is dieing and where the class struggle is having a different character.
Democracy here too plays an integral part, for as long as class society exists, so too will the workers "state" and so too will democracy as a form of governing. Only when all classes have been absorbed into the working class and the working class therefore has negated itself, is there no longer any class hegemony and distinct political rule. All functions of the state have then collapsed within society itself and democracy has come to an end.
But I agree with Stammer that the battle for democracy in the here and now is indeed absolutely vital for the reasons I already mentioned. |
Bold added. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sikpuppy
n00b
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 23
Location: Central Coast, NSW
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ...Only when all classes have been absorbed into the working class... |
Is this the Borg Collective theory of social engineering? It certainly sounds like it, reading between the flowery lines.
The funny thing is that Gene Roddenberry was a greedy manipulative man, but I suppose he wasn't the first science fiction writer to practice little of what he preached. (He wrote godawful, never recorded, lyrics to the original star Trek theme tune so he would get half the royalty, without telling the composer, Alaxander Courage. Now that's capitalism at work!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q-collective
Advocate
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 2054
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sikpuppy wrote: | | Quote: | | ...Only when all classes have been absorbed into the working class... |
Is this the Borg Collective theory of social engineering? It certainly sounds like it, reading between the flowery lines. |
No
The statement is made from a class analysis point of view. Mainly the working class can "absorb" the middle classes part by part via education to gain skills that are now commonly attributed to middle class elements, such as accountancy and other highly specialized tasks tasks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dominique_71
Veteran
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1240
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: |
a. Egalitarianism, as opposed to individuals seeking to better their personal situation, is contrary to human nature, so maintaining it requires authoritarianism. In all cases where extremely socialistic societies have been created, this has been the case, and it has produced the most unconscionable and largest-scale atrocities humanity has seen. Despite having existed at the national level for less than a century, Communism has a billion deaths to answer for. |
The capitalism is not better. It started with the colonisations and its procession of large scale atrocities. What did Europa to the rest of the world at that time is the same, with other means, than what Hitler did to Europa. The colonisations was the beginning of Hell for the rest of the world.
We also get a very large scale slave trade which did around 250 millions dead peoples in around 300 years.
Today, the poverty is the most effective weapon of mass destruction. In effect, according to the UN (PNUD), we produce enough food for every body on hearth, and always according to the PNUD, it is around 35 millions of peoples starving to death each single year. This imply that the unique raison for this multitude to stave to death is poverty: they just cannot buy the food that is available on the markets.
And you can make the calculus: 35 millions of death peoples each single year is the biggest Holocaust of all times. I will never say than capitalism is better than communism, when this simple calculus show me that capitalism is the worst system of all times.
This have another implication: the important is not if we are living into a communist or capitalist system, but what those system are sharing in common. And they share one thing: the exploitation of the natural resources (all of them, including the human beings) that characterize them.
And I know only one cure against exploitation: the respect.
Also, what is the human nature? Beside what I said before about human transcendence, the psychologists showed us into the last century that we are empathic and social creatures.
That imply that we want to help each other, and that we want to share our experience with each other. Naturally, we can have different positions, but the last thing we want to do is to fight against each other. That imply that we prefer consensus instead of war, and that war made us sick.
| BoneKracker wrote: |
c. Extreme collectivism and forced egalitarianism deny individuals the pursuit of happiness and prosperity, which are the natural human condition. |
I fully agree with happiness, but instead of prosperity, it is dignity which includes the ability to raise a family in good conditions with all that imply: access to education, health care, housing, food. In many countries of the world, capitalism is a huge failure in that regard, and that is not communism's fault. The same effects produce the same reaction, and communism is just a reaction among others against a system based on exploitation.
| BoneKracker wrote: |
d. It always fails. Communists like to point to a couple of short-lived, small-scale experiments, but the truth is that communalism is impracticable on a scale larger than village or clan, where everybody knows everybody and are cognizant of each other's activities. Beyond that scale, it inevitably collapses or evolves into a totalitarian hell.
The only way I can envision a "communist" society working would be as a collection of many small communes, each of which functions not unlike a traditional family (which both cooperate and compete with each other, exchange members, have varying economic status, and so on). |
Those small scale experiments is what made the success of humanity from its origins there over a million years until recently, this correspond to antiquity where new ideologies based on the domination of nature and man did appear.
That said, I fully agree than this form of living is only possible at little scale. It is why we must reinvent the politics: those who will suffer the consequences of political decisions should be those who take them, those in charge. The politics must be done at the basic level, and the politicians at the higher levels must be only administrators of the decisions that was taken by the base. For that to work, it must be no secret in politics.
_________________
As the thought come before the action, revolution means revolutionary consciousness!
Fvwm-Crystal in action & here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sikpuppy
n00b
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 23
Location: Central Coast, NSW
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Q-collective wrote: |
No |
| Quote: | | The statement is made from a class analysis point of view. Mainly the working class can "absorb" the middle classes part by part via education to gain skills that are now commonly attributed to middle class elements, such as accountancy and other highly specialized tasks tasks. |
Yeah, like poly-technical education. However, someone still needs to freshen public lavatories and provide burgers to the masses (separately one would hope), educated or no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dominique_71 wrote: | | The capitalism is not better. It started with the colonisations and its procession of large scale atrocities. What did Europa to the rest of the world at that time is the same, with other means, than what Hitler did to Europa. The colonisations was the beginning of Hell for the rest of the world. |
From my perspective it seems that the matter is emotional and character development of individuals. One of the basic principles of life and evolution in general is competition, and humans are not removed from that. We consume food, take resources, compete with each other, breed, etc etc. It is natural that we compete with each other.
Now communists and socialists, they seem to be at unease with the basic facts of life. So they want to undo and forbid it. Which is a dellusion, possibly born out of theological view of ourselves as removed and better then "animal kingdom". All science points to the contrary.
Instead of fighting it, optimal system would be enabling more to participate in competition. But then the relative difference between 100x better then today and 500x better then today would become apparent, so then again you have unequalities. Richest and most successful will always be more attractive, thus have more chance of offspring, this more people will be envious.
Thats why you need free competition, but state should act to take care of general populace who don't climb to be 1%, in other word middle class. Any country without middle class is harsh environment. But also any country where talent is not allowed to develop to its full potential is stagnating and counter-evolutionary. Which is why communism is only ever gonna get supported by those who don't want/can participate in competition.
Last edited by Prenj on Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dominique_71
Veteran
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1240
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Prenj wrote: | | But also any class where talent is not allowed to develop to its full potential is stagnating and counter-evolutionary. Which is why communism is only ever gonna get supported by those who don't want/can participate in competition. |
Come on! In the capitalist system we are living in, in most countries of the world, only the richest can get in good schools. So, this is a not talent but money that will define the conditions of living of most of us. A lot of people just don't have a bank account, they are just too poor for that. And most of their children will just be like their parent: without education and without bank account.
Which give us exactly what you said, a system that is completely stagnating and counter-evolutionary. And most of us just don't want to participate into a system where the only possibility to get a good education, and later a good job, is conditioned by the richness or lack of richness of their parents. In such conditions, the best thing that can append, is than some talented poor guy will take any opportunity to go at school and make a revolution. This is exactly what Chavez did in Venezuela.
Before Chavez, the rich guys in Venezuela was just making money with the oil. It was no investments to develop or divers the economy, most of the children didn't go at school more than a few years, most of the peoples was living in poverty without any access to the health care system. Chavez was one of those children. He was going at school barefoot because his father was so poor. He goes at the army only to get the chance to pursue its education. Today, we can see parents with their children following the same curses in Venezuela, we can see peoples following mixed practical and theoretical formations of all kinds, we can see a huge program of investment to develop and diversify the country's economy and industry, we can see poor peoples every where with access to health care, we can see a huge program of reconstruction of insalubrious districts. It is why Chavez is the most popular guy today in Venezuela. OK, this is not communism, but this is not capitalism either, this is something in between.
_________________
As the thought come before the action, revolution means revolutionary consciousness!
Fvwm-Crystal in action & here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dominique_71 wrote: | | Prenj wrote: | | But also any class where talent is not allowed to develop to its full potential is stagnating and counter-evolutionary. Which is why communism is only ever gonna get supported by those who don't want/can participate in competition. |
Come on! In the capitalist system we are living in, in most countries of the world, only the richest can get in good schools. So, this is a not talent but money that will define the conditions of living of most of us. A lot of people just don't have a bank account, they are just too poor for that. And most of their children will just be like their parent: without education and without bank account.
|
You are thinking black and white. You percieve your side as black, so the other thing must be white. It is your own stake that is clouding your judgement. The grass must be greener on the other side.
I am not saying that the solution is the US as it is, note that i wrote about middle class, which is undermined and impoverished right now in most western world, simply because production has moved. Instead of production-based society, west has turned into finance-based society, and there is only so many finance people. Rest are smoked, or may find themselves working to support the current state of affairs.
Socialism doesn't solve the problem, it just shifts paradigm. Instead of financial elite, you'd have political elite. Same thing really, equally immoral in its ways, different suit. Then you'd be complaining about them.
The solution must be to modify your CURRENT system to the state where majority is happy (but for real, not pacified by TV), so that you once again have healthy majority middle class, and where educational system is cheap (free) and it works. If most people can afford a house, decent standard of living, etc etc, they don't really give a fuck that some jock on Wall Street is driving a Porsche. They are too busy with whatever interests they have in their lives, and that is allright.
| Dominique_71 wrote: | | Which give us exactly what you said, a system that is completely stagnating and counter-evolutionary. And most of us just don't want to participate into a system where the only possibility to get a good education, and later a good job, is conditioned by the richness or lack of richness of their parents. |
It is evolutionary, it just evolves the elite faster then plebs. And the reason for that is because plebs are afraid to do what is required of them. To spend that energy to start chemical reaction, so to speak.
They want it on a plate, which is the bane of young people today. They had too good childhood, parents drove them to soccer practices, everything on a plate, and they demand the social change on a plate as well. Which never, ever, happened in human history.
Evolutionary conclusion, spoiled kids get extinct, maybe the pampering and trying to create "perfect" childhood was a bad idea. Not saying that you should abuse your kids, but to learn them to walk on their own feet.
| Dominique_71 wrote: | | This is exactly what Chavez did in Venezuela. |
US is not Venezuela, nor will it ever be, and the reason is simple: Power. People in Power in US are too strong and rooted too deep to let someone like Chavez do stuff for the people. It's not how it works.
The only thing you can do is put a lot of pressure so that they are willing to compromise, and start factoring in the possibility of unrest into profit equation. However, american lifestyle of TV-watching, fast-food, anti-intellectialism, stupid reality TV shows is making sure that the population is uninformed, afraid and complacent. The awake minority on the other hand may not react too positively to some college ideological propaganda and marxism, simply because they are awake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dominique_71 wrote: | | Come on! In the capitalist system we are living in, in most countries of the world, only the richest can get in good schools. |
1. Bullshit.
2. The 'good' schools being the non-government run schools?
Very nice 'self-goal', Che.
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q-collective
Advocate
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 2054
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Muso wrote: | | Dominique_71 wrote: | | Come on! In the capitalist system we are living in, in most countries of the world, only the richest can get in good schools. |
1. Bullshit.
2. The 'good' schools being the non-government run schools?
Very nice 'self-goal', Che. |
Hardly. Communists* don't stand on state education, as the state as it exists today is not an impartial but a class-biased instrument of rule. State-education can best be put historically in the Fordist economic mentality, where capitalism needed a highly skilled working class to create surplus value more effectively.
The working class movement ought to organize its own educational collectives that pursue scientific education to wide masses of people. Only an educated class has the possibility of becoming a ruling class.
*Note: I don't know what Dominique_71 precisely is, politically speaking. But he comes over to me as your average left social-democrat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Q-collective wrote: | | Muso wrote: | | Dominique_71 wrote: | | Come on! In the capitalist system we are living in, in most countries of the world, only the richest can get in good schools. |
1. Bullshit.
2. The 'good' schools being the non-government run schools?
Very nice 'self-goal', Che. |
Hardly. Communists* don't stand on state education, as the state as it exists today is not an impartial but a class-biased instrument of rule. State-education can best be put historically in the Fordist economic mentality, where capitalism needed a highly skilled working class to create surplus value more effectively.
The working class movement ought to organize its own educational collectives that pursue scientific education to wide masses of people. Only an educated class has the possibility of becoming a ruling class.
*Note: I don't know what Dominique_71 precisely is, politically speaking. But he comes over to me as your average left social-democrat. |
And who is better to lead working class into new victories then political class? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sikpuppy
n00b
Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 23
Location: Central Coast, NSW
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Prenj wrote: | | And who is better to lead working class into new victories then political class? |
A blind goat perhaps. Or (*sniggers*) your momma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
So much effort into trying to justify the stealing of other people's money.
All of you leftists make me laugh.
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q-collective
Advocate
Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 2054
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Prenj wrote: | | And who is better to lead working class into new victories then political class? |
Not sure what that is supposed to mean.
| Muso wrote: | So much effort into trying to justify the stealing of other people's money.
All of you leftists make me laugh. |
Not sure what to make of this either. Is it a jab against the "you lefties raise the taxes" narrative? In that case: Communists are for abolishing all indirect taxes (that is, most taxes). If something is to be taxed, it should be clear for what purpose it is done. Again, we have no interest in strengthening the state, we want to organize the working class to overthrow its minoritarian rule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muso
l33t
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 655
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Q-collective wrote: | | Muso wrote: | So much effort into trying to justify the stealing of other people's money.
All of you leftists make me laugh. |
Not sure what to make of this either. Is it a jab against the "you lefties raise the taxes" narrative? In that case: Communists are for abolishing all indirect taxes (that is, most taxes). |
I'll make it easy for you. Exactly how much of my money are you entitled to?
_________________
If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for the problems caused by government, I'd be a fat filmmaker with a baseball cap |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prenj
n00b
Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 7
Location: Mostar, BiH
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Q-collective wrote: | | Prenj wrote: | | And who is better to lead working class into new victories then political class? |
Not sure what that is supposed to mean. |
It means that after revolution you will again have class struggle, between working and political class. Unless you are gunning to be the political class, but then all this talk about nobler ideologies is just smokescreen for "I want to be the one who sits there on top and drives a ferrari".
All this leftist rhethoric is basically validating Nietsche and human desire for power, except you want it for yourselves. It has nothing to do with altruism. Which is fine, but you're not gonna get it by talking. Nor will sane people willingly give you what they own. Nor should they. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
