D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Think for a second what you’re implying there.
Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.
- Thread starter Crni Vuk
- Start date
Think for a second what you’re implying there.
I mean, it'd be funny to imply that communist countries can't even get their mass murder done by themselves, but mass murder is the one thing these countries are actually good at. Gotta hand it to them.
/edit: Wait, sorry, socialist countries. Communism has never been tried yet.
/edit: Wait, sorry, socialist countries. Communism has never been tried yet.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Crni Vuk said:
Only when compared to the HYPOTHETICAL benefits of UHC. Also, often times those hypothetical savings are often blown out of proportion. You keep bringing up Canadian or British healthcare. Nobody has done a thorough study of how to implement a Canadian or British UHC for America because it doesn't work that way. Just because the British managed to keep the their service solvent doesn't mean the U.S. will get the same result.
All the democrats were screaming about how fucking awesome Obamacare was going to be. Years later, its expensive as hell, and worse, the individual mandate FORCED people to go on it or pay a fine.
Crni Vuk said:
You mean a total sum of NET gain by MANY DIFFERENT companies? And this is BEFORE taxes? I can't help but feel you see some giant dollar figure related to wall street and go, 'There is money, pay for free shit".
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/
Whether you believe politic fact is a trustworthy source or not, that wall street tax can't even pay for free college tuition, forget lumping in UHC, and all the other shit Bernie runs his mouth about.
Kind of like Jill Stein saying that "quantitative easing", is just a 'magic trick, and you don't have to understand how it works'.
Crni Vuk said:
Yeah, if the state is paying tuition for someone going into STEM or any degree that is a public good. But I am not going to pay for some degree that doesn't make money or doesn't do any public good.
Crni Vuk said:
Useless people will ALWAYS be a drain on society. These same people are already getting benefits, but that is fine. Nature of the beast if you will. But your answer, to throw even MORE money into these burning trashcans, is crazy.
Crni Vuk said:
It isn't just ONE, THIS is the problem. Also, I never advocated letting people stay in poverty. I have explained many times we should remove barriers to higher paying jobs like college degrees for any job that mostly requires on the job training. I am FOR free tuition IF, the degree the person is getting has money making potential or can serve a public good. I am FOR UBI, if you remember, as long as the conditions for it are met.
Last edited:
And here we go again ... useless people. You guys don't even realize how close neoliberalism is to socialism in that department.
Ah well. Who gives a fuck, right? They are useless people. They just want free shit. They are leeches on society. You don't even realize how there is an actual war on the poor going on right now.
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Congo was under Belgian rule till 1965. But I gues that was also not true capitalism.
So as usually, the whole story is more complex than just, LULZ COMMUNIST MASS MURDER! CAPITALIST HEAVEN! Or do I get to hear now, that was not true capitalism!
What it really comes down to, is extremism. When you have ideologies at work, which both Communism and Capitalism can be, and you have extremist views dominating, then you get people killed. This is true for societies that follow a totalitarian socialist government that owns everything, just as it is for a society where large companies exploit everything without any regulation. The point is, to have a sort of balance. You can not go without private ownership, but you can also not let people do as they please or you end up with exploitation!
According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution.
Ah well. Who gives a fuck, right? They are useless people. They just want free shit. They are leeches on society. You don't even realize how there is an actual war on the poor going on right now.
Pointing out facts that, Communism =/= Socialism, isn't the same as calling for viollent revolutions or even saying that a pure communist society is possible to achieve.
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
You had history classes too, right? Industrialisation? Completely ignore it if you want, but that was the closest you got to a capitalist society. I am sure the factory workers, coal miners and weavers enjoyed the fruits of capitalism. Who knows how many of them died due to the terrible conditions they experienced, from child labour to mass starvation. And thats just one time period. We havn't even touched on slavery and colonialism which costed millions of lives./edit: But don't worry. As tovarish Arnust will say when he's pouring lime over the next mass grave: "Well, under capitalism they would have died, too".
Congo was under Belgian rule till 1965. But I gues that was also not true capitalism.
Don’t get me wrong: regimes that took the name “communist” – from Stalin’s to Pol Pot’s – committed unspeakable, monstrous crimes. But for the right, a revival of interest in Marx’s pre-Stalinist vision of communism is the most striking and chilling example of its own collapsing ideological supremacy: “communism” is synonymous with tens of millions of deaths and nothing else. Capitalism, by contrast, is presented as a largely bloodless, blameless engine of human prosperity.
The story of capitalism is more complicated than that. If you want to read effusive praise of capitalism, you’ll find it in Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto: the revolutionary dynamism of the capitalists, they wrote, had created “wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals”. But capitalism is an economic system drenched in the blood of countless millions.
(...)
But he also noted in a 2006 paper that in the middle of the 20th century, China and India had the same life expectancy – around 40 years. After the Chinese revolution, a massive divergence took place. By 1979, Maoist China had a life expectancy of 68 years, more than 14 years longer than that of capitalist India.
The excess in mortality of capitalist India over communist China was estimated to be a horrifying 4 million human lives a year. So why isn’t India held up as a case study for the murderousness of capitalism?
Capitalism was built on the bodies of millions from the very start. From the late 17th century onwards, the transatlantic slave trade became a pillar of emergent capitalism. Much of the wealth of London, Bristol and Liverpool – once the largest slave trading port in Europe – was made from the enslaved labour of Africans. The capital accumulated from slavery – from tobacco, cotton and sugar – drove the industrial revolution in Manchester and Lancashire; and several banks today can trace their origins to profits made from slavery.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/26/communists-capitalism-stalinism-economic-model
The story of capitalism is more complicated than that. If you want to read effusive praise of capitalism, you’ll find it in Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto: the revolutionary dynamism of the capitalists, they wrote, had created “wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals”. But capitalism is an economic system drenched in the blood of countless millions.
(...)
But he also noted in a 2006 paper that in the middle of the 20th century, China and India had the same life expectancy – around 40 years. After the Chinese revolution, a massive divergence took place. By 1979, Maoist China had a life expectancy of 68 years, more than 14 years longer than that of capitalist India.
The excess in mortality of capitalist India over communist China was estimated to be a horrifying 4 million human lives a year. So why isn’t India held up as a case study for the murderousness of capitalism?
Capitalism was built on the bodies of millions from the very start. From the late 17th century onwards, the transatlantic slave trade became a pillar of emergent capitalism. Much of the wealth of London, Bristol and Liverpool – once the largest slave trading port in Europe – was made from the enslaved labour of Africans. The capital accumulated from slavery – from tobacco, cotton and sugar – drove the industrial revolution in Manchester and Lancashire; and several banks today can trace their origins to profits made from slavery.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/26/communists-capitalism-stalinism-economic-model
So as usually, the whole story is more complex than just, LULZ COMMUNIST MASS MURDER! CAPITALIST HEAVEN! Or do I get to hear now, that was not true capitalism!
What it really comes down to, is extremism. When you have ideologies at work, which both Communism and Capitalism can be, and you have extremist views dominating, then you get people killed. This is true for societies that follow a totalitarian socialist government that owns everything, just as it is for a society where large companies exploit everything without any regulation. The point is, to have a sort of balance. You can not go without private ownership, but you can also not let people do as they please or you end up with exploitation!
Last edited:
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Alright time to beat on Crni again...
Communism definition - In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]
So most of your talk here seems to be out of your ass and not in line with what communism actually is.
As for communism has not been tried yet:
Communism in the Soviet Union
Main article: Communist state
The Russian SFSR as a part of the USSR in 1922
The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, in which the Bolsheviks had a majority.[18][19][20] The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. However, Russia was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[21]
The moderate Mensheviks (minority) opposed Lenin's Bolshevik (majority) plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread and land" which tapped into the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the soviets.[22] The Soviet Union was established in 1922.
Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base. They were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline.[23] In the Moscow Trials, many old Bolsheviks who had played prominent roles during the Russian Revolution of 1917 or in Lenin's Soviet government afterwards, including Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov and Bukharin, were accused, pleaded guilty of conspiracy against the Soviet Union, and were executed.[24]
Seems to me this has been tried already. But what the communist party didn't take control to implement communism right? They were the socialist party....
Communism definition - In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]
So most of your talk here seems to be out of your ass and not in line with what communism actually is.
As for communism has not been tried yet:
Communism in the Soviet Union
Main article: Communist state
.svg)
The Russian SFSR as a part of the USSR in 1922
The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, in which the Bolsheviks had a majority.[18][19][20] The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. However, Russia was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[21]
The moderate Mensheviks (minority) opposed Lenin's Bolshevik (majority) plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread and land" which tapped into the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the soviets.[22] The Soviet Union was established in 1922.
Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base. They were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline.[23] In the Moscow Trials, many old Bolsheviks who had played prominent roles during the Russian Revolution of 1917 or in Lenin's Soviet government afterwards, including Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov and Bukharin, were accused, pleaded guilty of conspiracy against the Soviet Union, and were executed.[24]
Seems to me this has been tried already. But what the communist party didn't take control to implement communism right? They were the socialist party....
No, see, the USSR failed and was a brutal regime. Ergo, it wasn't communism.
And where does it say that the Soviet Union was a PURELY Communist society?
The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[c] (USSR),[d] was a socialist state in Eurasia that existed from 30 December 1922 to 26 December 1991
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
It says Socialist State, not Communist State. There. Never. Was. A. Communist. State. Get it finally in your thick skulls. There is no capitalist state either.
But let us go over the text shall we?
Communism definition - In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]
The goal is the establishment of the communist society. What does it actually say about 'communist society' and let us see if that fits to the Soviet Union.
In Marxist thought, communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of communism. A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless,[3] implying the end of the exploitation of labour.[4][5]
So, let us take a closer look at the Soviet Union:
Was it a classless society? No. You had rulers, a political class, military, workers and farmers. The difference is, that it was all controlled by the state.
Was it a stateless society? No. The Soviet Union had a governement and authorities.
Was there free access to the means of production? No. The state controlled and distributed everything - planned economy.
The moderate Mensheviks (minority) opposed Lenin's Bolshevik (majority) plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed.
There are diofferent ideas on how to implent socialist and marxist ideas in a society. What Lenin followed, was his interpretation of the Socialist-Marxist ideas and concept. Before the Russian revolution, several different groups formed around the philosphy that was described by Marx.
Socialist Ideologies
The modern political marxist communist movement was created when the social democratic parties of Europe split between their rightist and leftist tendencies during World War I. The leftists, led internationally by Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, to distinguish their brand of socialism from the "reformist" social democrats, were called "communists". However, after Luxemburg's and Liebknecht's murders the term communist became generally associated solely with the parties and organisations following Lenin, along with their various derivations, such as Stalinism or Maoism.
(...)
Some forms of the communist society that Marx envisioned, as emerging from capitalism, have been claimed to be achieved for limited periods during certain historical moments and under certain circumstances. For example, the Paris Commune in fact let Marx reinforce and implement his theories by adapting them to a real experience he could draw from. Another similar case, though disputed by anarcho-syndicalism or even anarchism, was the Spanish Revolution of 1936 (often missed or unmentioned by official historiography), during which much of Spain's economy in most of Republican areas, some of which enjoyed a practical absence of state, was put under workers' direct collective control.
(...)
Social democracy can be divided into classic and modern strands. Classic social democracy was a political philosophy that attempted to achieve socialism through gradual, parliamentary means and by reforming capitalism from within rather than through revolutionary means. The term social democracy can refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate.
The Socialist International (SI) – the worldwide organization of social democratic and democratic socialist parties – defines social democracy as an ideal form of representative democracy, that may solve the problems found in a liberal democracy. The SI emphasizes the following principles [3]: Firstly, freedom – not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Secondly, equality and social justice – not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity – unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.
Social democracy seeks to contain capitalism through transitioning unstable private sector enterprises into public ownership, correcting economic and social inequality through social safety nets and services (sometimes referred to as welfare state policies) and more aggressive regulation of markets and private enterprise than other forms of mixed economy. Over the past forty years, social democracy has increasingly been replaced with alternate economic systems such as the social market economy or Third Way mixed economies that are informed by Keynesian economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Socialist_ideologies
If you look at it historically, then you have also to throw ANY social democratic party that exists today in the same basket, and pretty much all Social Democratic nations, like Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, India (and son on) out. They must certainly be on the path of murderious regimes, since they all follow some socialist and leftist principles.
Either you guys are consistent in your criticism, or you just continue to show your missunderstanding by not giving a fuck about what we're talking about.
The Soviet Union, officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[c] (USSR),[d] was a socialist state in Eurasia that existed from 30 December 1922 to 26 December 1991
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
It says Socialist State, not Communist State. There. Never. Was. A. Communist. State. Get it finally in your thick skulls. There is no capitalist state either.
But let us go over the text shall we?
Communism definition - In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]
The goal is the establishment of the communist society. What does it actually say about 'communist society' and let us see if that fits to the Soviet Union.
In Marxist thought, communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of communism. A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless,[3] implying the end of the exploitation of labour.[4][5]
So, let us take a closer look at the Soviet Union:
Was it a classless society? No. You had rulers, a political class, military, workers and farmers. The difference is, that it was all controlled by the state.
Was it a stateless society? No. The Soviet Union had a governement and authorities.
Was there free access to the means of production? No. The state controlled and distributed everything - planned economy.
Planned economies are usually associated with Soviet-type central planning, which involves centralized state planning and administrative decision-making. ... As such, the concept of a planned economy is often associated with socialism and with socialist planning.
But the text from GonZo tells us more:The moderate Mensheviks (minority) opposed Lenin's Bolshevik (majority) plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed.
There are diofferent ideas on how to implent socialist and marxist ideas in a society. What Lenin followed, was his interpretation of the Socialist-Marxist ideas and concept. Before the Russian revolution, several different groups formed around the philosphy that was described by Marx.
Socialist Ideologies
The modern political marxist communist movement was created when the social democratic parties of Europe split between their rightist and leftist tendencies during World War I. The leftists, led internationally by Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, to distinguish their brand of socialism from the "reformist" social democrats, were called "communists". However, after Luxemburg's and Liebknecht's murders the term communist became generally associated solely with the parties and organisations following Lenin, along with their various derivations, such as Stalinism or Maoism.
(...)
Some forms of the communist society that Marx envisioned, as emerging from capitalism, have been claimed to be achieved for limited periods during certain historical moments and under certain circumstances. For example, the Paris Commune in fact let Marx reinforce and implement his theories by adapting them to a real experience he could draw from. Another similar case, though disputed by anarcho-syndicalism or even anarchism, was the Spanish Revolution of 1936 (often missed or unmentioned by official historiography), during which much of Spain's economy in most of Republican areas, some of which enjoyed a practical absence of state, was put under workers' direct collective control.
(...)
Social democracy can be divided into classic and modern strands. Classic social democracy was a political philosophy that attempted to achieve socialism through gradual, parliamentary means and by reforming capitalism from within rather than through revolutionary means. The term social democracy can refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate.
The Socialist International (SI) – the worldwide organization of social democratic and democratic socialist parties – defines social democracy as an ideal form of representative democracy, that may solve the problems found in a liberal democracy. The SI emphasizes the following principles [3]: Firstly, freedom – not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Secondly, equality and social justice – not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity – unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality.
Social democracy seeks to contain capitalism through transitioning unstable private sector enterprises into public ownership, correcting economic and social inequality through social safety nets and services (sometimes referred to as welfare state policies) and more aggressive regulation of markets and private enterprise than other forms of mixed economy. Over the past forty years, social democracy has increasingly been replaced with alternate economic systems such as the social market economy or Third Way mixed economies that are informed by Keynesian economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Socialist_ideologies
If you look at it historically, then you have also to throw ANY social democratic party that exists today in the same basket, and pretty much all Social Democratic nations, like Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, India (and son on) out. They must certainly be on the path of murderious regimes, since they all follow some socialist and leftist principles.
Either you guys are consistent in your criticism, or you just continue to show your missunderstanding by not giving a fuck about what we're talking about.
TheGM
The voice of reason
Because when I think of what the Free Market should look like I think the pinnacle. . .The goddamn Capstone, The Belgian Free State. Totally not the personal playground of the king of Belgium. no sir re-bob.
Slavery and Capitalism go hand in hand, just ask the ancient Egyptians. The Free Market has just killed so many people guys, just ask free venture capitalists like Warren Buffet, Jed Clampet or ATTILATHEFUCKINGHUN.
Slavery and Capitalism go hand in hand, just ask the ancient Egyptians. The Free Market has just killed so many people guys, just ask free venture capitalists like Warren Buffet, Jed Clampet or ATTILATHEFUCKINGHUN.
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Hooray wiki back and forth
First country listed as communist here is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
USSR? So just because it does not take a pure stance on communism, it is not communism? So there are no capitalist nations everybody, look at that none of us follow capitalism because we are not anarcho-capitalists. Jesus Crni you are going to have to come up with a better argument then they were socialist here. I mean you pretty much made my argument for me on this right at the end there
If you look at it historically, then you have also to throw ANY social democratic party that exists today in the same basket, and pretty much all Social Democratic nations, like Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, India (and son on) out. They must certainly be on the path of murderious regimes, since they all follow some socialist and leftist principles.
So because the USSR was not pure that means it must have been a wonderful liberal society full of equality and people treating each other great right? You cannot compare social democracies listed above which are all far more capitalist and have only taken some of the elements of socialism that may work and integrated them into there own nations. Yes not all socialist ideas are bad. But socialism itself is bad and the proof is those nations. They stuck with a system that was working and have been tweaking to make them better. The real socialist states do not evolve that way, they devolve when the money runs out into the authoritarian regimes that they are, and they are authoritarian as that is the only way to implement full communism/socialism.
As you never go full retard, you never should go full communist.
But as to the above that is also why I have given up on the left/right as this is to simple of a way of stating things. Politics is far more complicated then left/right especially when you consider that things like capitalism and socialism/communism are in fact political. The grid system is best. Keeping low and slightly right in my libertarian ways.
Also the system you seem to want to put in place as your version of "pure communism" seems to be:
Libertarian Marxism
Libertarian Marxism is a broad range of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism. Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left communism,[49] emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism[50] and its derivatives, such as Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism.[51] Libertarian Marxism is also critical of reformist positions, such as those held by social democrats.[52] Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The Civil War in France,[53] emphasizing the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state to mediate or aid its liberation.[54] Along with anarchism, libertarian Marxism is one of the main currents of libertarian socialism.[55]
Libertarian Marxism includes such currents as Luxemburgism, council communism, left communism, Socialisme ou Barbarie, the Johnson-Forest tendency, world socialism, Lettrism/Situationism and operaismo/autonomism and New Left.[56] Libertarian Marxism has often had a strong influence on both post-left and social anarchists. Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Anton Pannekoek, Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Antonio Negri, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, Guy Debord, Daniel Guérin, Ernesto Screpanti and Raoul Vaneigem.
So far low and to the far left.
First country listed as communist here is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
USSR? So just because it does not take a pure stance on communism, it is not communism? So there are no capitalist nations everybody, look at that none of us follow capitalism because we are not anarcho-capitalists. Jesus Crni you are going to have to come up with a better argument then they were socialist here. I mean you pretty much made my argument for me on this right at the end there
If you look at it historically, then you have also to throw ANY social democratic party that exists today in the same basket, and pretty much all Social Democratic nations, like Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, India (and son on) out. They must certainly be on the path of murderious regimes, since they all follow some socialist and leftist principles.
So because the USSR was not pure that means it must have been a wonderful liberal society full of equality and people treating each other great right? You cannot compare social democracies listed above which are all far more capitalist and have only taken some of the elements of socialism that may work and integrated them into there own nations. Yes not all socialist ideas are bad. But socialism itself is bad and the proof is those nations. They stuck with a system that was working and have been tweaking to make them better. The real socialist states do not evolve that way, they devolve when the money runs out into the authoritarian regimes that they are, and they are authoritarian as that is the only way to implement full communism/socialism.
As you never go full retard, you never should go full communist.
But as to the above that is also why I have given up on the left/right as this is to simple of a way of stating things. Politics is far more complicated then left/right especially when you consider that things like capitalism and socialism/communism are in fact political. The grid system is best. Keeping low and slightly right in my libertarian ways.
Also the system you seem to want to put in place as your version of "pure communism" seems to be:
Libertarian Marxism
Libertarian Marxism is a broad range of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism. Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left communism,[49] emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism[50] and its derivatives, such as Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism.[51] Libertarian Marxism is also critical of reformist positions, such as those held by social democrats.[52] Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The Civil War in France,[53] emphasizing the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state to mediate or aid its liberation.[54] Along with anarchism, libertarian Marxism is one of the main currents of libertarian socialism.[55]
Libertarian Marxism includes such currents as Luxemburgism, council communism, left communism, Socialisme ou Barbarie, the Johnson-Forest tendency, world socialism, Lettrism/Situationism and operaismo/autonomism and New Left.[56] Libertarian Marxism has often had a strong influence on both post-left and social anarchists. Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Anton Pannekoek, Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Antonio Negri, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, Guy Debord, Daniel Guérin, Ernesto Screpanti and Raoul Vaneigem.
So far low and to the far left.
Is the US a capitalist country?
No I don't think so, please quote me on that.
All I am asking is, how is a communist society possible, when one of the ideals of a communist society is to be 'stateless' and without a government? Can you explain to me in Detail, how the Soviet Union worked without a government? Or can you point me in the direction of a Communist nation that has no government?
What you're talking about, is political communism represented trough communist parties, which is a part of socialist states, which I already covered. Their intention is to create a dictatorship of the proletariat with the INTENTION to create a communist society - which is impossible though.
The Soviet Union was as close to a communist society as North Korea is to a Democracy. Or would you describe them as a Democratic Nation, because they call them self officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
That's the kind of logic we're following right now.
Last edited:
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Yes. Not pure capitalist but yes.
No because it would be impossible to create a communist society/nation/state without a government. It is impossible to do anything without some form of government unless you alone are the only person. People naturally form governments from tribal leaders, to modern governments, its a natural human tendency when you get more then a couple of people together someone tends to start to lead the group. So your pure communist state is impossible as it goes against our very nature of working together.
So we agree a communist society is impossible. Any attempt to create one has ALWAYS gone badly. What's the point of this thread? You seem to answer yourself here and rag on the rest of us for stating this is a bad fucking idea.
No that is the logic you are implying, what I am trying to tell you is that the closest you can come to your pure communist society is shitholes like the USSR, or Venezula. And its a bad fucking idea to create more of these shitholes. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Oh lets build a authoritarian communist regime to usher in the great and pure stateless communist state. Fucking dumb!
So unless you can think of a way we can somehow defy our very nature you cannot have communism.
So is the Soviet Union now a communist society or not? You tried very hard to prove to me, that it was one - or so I thought. Now you say, it's impossible to create one - which is what I said like for the last 5 pages or something.
Either it's impossible to achieve, or it was implemented once. You can't have it both ways. And you don't have to, because the Soviet Union was a Socialist State, more precisely a Socialist Dicatorship. As I explained several times by now. But I will gladly repeat my self here.
So social democracies, which emerged from the socialist ideology and all the benefits that comes with it, do not exist for you I guess. Many benefits we see today in social democracies that make up most of the western world - yes including the US, which is not a capitalist society, have historicaly a lot do with the concept of communism. The idea of who owns the means of produciton, the balance between capitalistic and communistic ideology. We ARE already living in societies that implemented a few communistic ideas. I personaly consider social democracies we have today, a relatively succesfull try of following communist ideals, without following extremism. I just would like to see eventually more imporvements in the future, like trough the UBI, more equality, liberty and freedom for the individual, more inclusion and distribution of wealth, so more people can benefit from it. As Noam Chomsky explains, the ideology of socialism, is not just limited to the Soviet Union and their understanding of it:
My parents also also grew up in a socialist country. They do not all work the same, they do not all end up like the Soviet Union with millions of people send in to gulags. While Yugoslavia was not a paradise, it had a relatively high degree of freedom for its citizens. This kind of shit were discussing here, happens when you get your head to stuck in PragerU rhetoric, where everyhing is a Soviet Dictatorship when ever you hear 'Socialism'.
Again, I am starting to repeat my self, if you reduce communism and capitalism to the bare minimum, it all comes down to the means of production and who owns them, in communism it is the collective (more or less everyone) in capitalism there is only private ownership. This, is completely neutral! Neither Capitalism nor Communism in thise case, is either evil or good! Any healthy society with a sound economy, will NEED both. Not everything can be owned by the public and not everything can be in private ownership. In some instances, the public which is hopefully represented by a democratically ellected governement, has to take controll, like public parks (spaces), infrastructure, jurisdiction, education etc., in other areas, like trade, production, consumption, competition, free trade, the private sector is better suited. But there will always be some sort of overlaping and it should idealy be in ballance. - See Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and the role of the Government.
I never said we will. That still shouldn't stop us from making improvements. If we didn't, we would still be stuck in 18th century industrialisation where people are slaving away in factories and coal mines. Democracy, or the kind of society we have today, was once seen as Utopian as well. Now we do not have 'pure' Democracies, but I would say we are closer to it than the societies 300 years ago and that's because we had a steady progress going on.
Last edited:
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Alright time to deal with more bullshit from the "educated" who cant see beyond his own ass on this.
No it was a communist state. The communist society is fucking impossible. Goes to beat my head against a wall for having to deal with this again.
Socialist State = Communist state, the difference hear is so minimal that it is ridiculous to think they are different.
social democracies do not equal a socialist state. Go ahead and compare a social democracy with any actual socialist state and show me how they are the same. You and only a few deranged people would consider a social democracy anything close to a socialist state. And yes I have stated before many capitalist nations have looked at socialism and for one reason or another decided to implement what actually looked might be a good idea from a shit load of horrible crap. Henry Ford which you have brought up before as a horrible person for some of the shit he did (I won't argue here) was also one of the first to bring those ideas to his factories to get and retain employees to grow his capitalist business. Does this make him a socialist now?
And if you keep reading Chomsky up there your brain is going to rot from being filled with fertilizer. Also your parents left there "socialist state" to gain a better life didn't they? Oh yeah socialism was what made their life better. I watch Prager sometimes does not mean I am stuck on there rhetoric, but yes I do consider real socialist countries to be soviet dictatorships, however the list of countries you label as socialist are capitalist nations with some socialist elements, not socialist havens of freedom, CAPATALIST! A social democracy does not equal a socialist state or they would be called a socialist state ie: Venezuela.
And as you have stated trying to break a complex idea into its basic simple form is not a good way of explaining things, and that is exactly what you re trying to do here. You cant look at these in their basic economic forms as they end up heavily influenced by the governments running them. Your right that neither entities of public or private should own everything, but that is not communism or socialism which both rely on the state owning everything. You want to make socialism look good, but none of the nations you brought up are actually socialist.
The problem here is we have already adopted those socialist ideas that work in many countries, to keep looking at that as your only source to how we can move on almost retarded (like AOC levels hahaha), maybe its time to get your head out of the little commie box before you end up stating another revolution. A Capitalist nation can have socialist elements yes (ie:Social Democracies), a communist nation may have some capitalist elements (ie: China). But in the end Sweden is still a capitalist nation, and China is still a socialist/communist nation.
No it was a communist state. The communist society is fucking impossible. Goes to beat my head against a wall for having to deal with this again.
Socialist State = Communist state, the difference hear is so minimal that it is ridiculous to think they are different.
social democracies do not equal a socialist state. Go ahead and compare a social democracy with any actual socialist state and show me how they are the same. You and only a few deranged people would consider a social democracy anything close to a socialist state. And yes I have stated before many capitalist nations have looked at socialism and for one reason or another decided to implement what actually looked might be a good idea from a shit load of horrible crap. Henry Ford which you have brought up before as a horrible person for some of the shit he did (I won't argue here) was also one of the first to bring those ideas to his factories to get and retain employees to grow his capitalist business. Does this make him a socialist now?
And if you keep reading Chomsky up there your brain is going to rot from being filled with fertilizer. Also your parents left there "socialist state" to gain a better life didn't they? Oh yeah socialism was what made their life better. I watch Prager sometimes does not mean I am stuck on there rhetoric, but yes I do consider real socialist countries to be soviet dictatorships, however the list of countries you label as socialist are capitalist nations with some socialist elements, not socialist havens of freedom, CAPATALIST! A social democracy does not equal a socialist state or they would be called a socialist state ie: Venezuela.
And as you have stated trying to break a complex idea into its basic simple form is not a good way of explaining things, and that is exactly what you re trying to do here. You cant look at these in their basic economic forms as they end up heavily influenced by the governments running them. Your right that neither entities of public or private should own everything, but that is not communism or socialism which both rely on the state owning everything. You want to make socialism look good, but none of the nations you brought up are actually socialist.
The problem here is we have already adopted those socialist ideas that work in many countries, to keep looking at that as your only source to how we can move on almost retarded (like AOC levels hahaha), maybe its time to get your head out of the little commie box before you end up stating another revolution. A Capitalist nation can have socialist elements yes (ie:Social Democracies), a communist nation may have some capitalist elements (ie: China). But in the end Sweden is still a capitalist nation, and China is still a socialist/communist nation.
Communist in name only, just like the GDR and North Korea see themself as 'Democratic'. Do you think they are democratic? Or take 'Communist' China as example, which is probably closer to capitalism than the United States today.
We have to talk about this over and over again, because I am talking about
Communist Societies/Ideology.
And not what ever you see in the Soviet Union, or what you see as 'Communist State'.
The term "Communist state" is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to these countries. However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as Socialist or Workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism.
You can keep on going and simplfy it all as much as you like and pretend everything is 'similar' but that doesn't mean it's actually that simple in reality.
TheGM
The voice of reason
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ran by The Communist Party.
I mean, c'mon!
I mean, c'mon!
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Communist countries need to start dropping nukes on fascist, unregulated free market -countries. That way communism will win. Enough with this 'lefties always gotta be peaceful hippies' -sheet.
https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-government-resigns/a-47822460
This is what happens in a communist country when the free market nazis try to mess with our UHC.
https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-government-resigns/a-47822460
This is what happens in a communist country when the free market nazis try to mess with our UHC.
Last edited:
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
And the Germans in 1939 I am sure did not consider the Nazi's to be genocidal monsters, I can identify as an M1 Abrams battle tank but that does not mean anybody sees me that way. Outside perspectives matter, nobody but N. Korea see themselves as democratic, so what they call themselves does not matter. Just because the USSR called themselves whatever they wanted everyone else called them communist, like N. Korea and China. And just because China has added some market elements into there wonderful communist utopia that does not make them a bigger capitalist state. Try own a company there without being a member of the communist party. You it seems have a wonderfully warped view of what communism actually is and what it has done for the world. My family was lucky to have left the Ukraine before the Holodomor but it still resonates that millions died for the great communist parties 5 year plans.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Crni Vuk said:
Ok, that would be the opposite of what YOU are advocating Crni as you have some flawed ass dream where apparently, EVERYONE is special and important and no matter how useless they ACTUALLY ARE, they are not.
Crni Vuk said:
Maybe because the poor are making stupid ass decisions or people generally being trifling and stupid. Remember our past discussions Crni, try not to lump EVERY SINGLE poor person as someone who just had shitty luck. Not only that, I do not mind helping those who were dealt a bad hand by fate as long as they are good people. What I will NOT tolerate is this stupid idea where everyone has to be treated like a baby and that all treatment help should come with no strings attached.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
I'm not sure if DarkCorp is considering that "steal my money to live comfortably doing nothing" is what rich people do, just with awful work/pay returns instead of taxes and to an actually notable extent in the larger scope. And that's when not it's ensued by literal corruption and bailouts.
DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Arnust said:
Naw, they couldn't be doing things like running companies, creating jobs, stimulating the economy. I bet you that if we just gave that hobo down the street some money, he would have the vision and skill to also run a company and provide people with jobs and not just waste it on booze.
Arnust said:
Again, yea, all jobs are the same and everyone is getting slave wage and living miserably. All companies are the same too. It couldn't be the fact that some dude flipping fucking burgers shouldn't be paid the same wage as a security guard who ACTUALLY has responsibilities like protecting private property, knowing the basics of law, being responsible for the safety and well being of those who are contracting them.
Arnust said:
Show me where I said companies and individuals SHOULDN'T be punished for evading taxes. In fact, I have said the opposite. Instead of making new, stupid rules, we should ENFORCE or FIX EXISTING rules, like tax evasion and loopholes.
Arnust said:
Again, show me where I said corruption was good or should be tolerated. If I remember correctly, I stated that corruption is bad wherever it is. I DID say that corruption will never be stamped out as that is impossible but we CAN limit it.
Bailout? Are you talking about the situation with our banks and I do not remember companies like Enron and Goldman Sachs, getting 'bailed' out.
It isn't so much of a bailout as many financial institutions had to close, Goldmann Sachs being one major example. A lot of banks were also put under intense government regulation after being 'bailed' out.
Lastly, what you term a bailout was the lesser of the two evils as the other choice was the federal government invoking FDIC and having to pay for the losses of every single bank customer deposit affected by the crisis.
My god, any kind of disagreement with nanny states and the same bullshit comes out, ignorant, flawed, blanket statements and assumptions put on the poster.
Last edited: