Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.

[valcik]

Scalper please! Too late for that shit, ease your jimmies and keep drinking vodka on the northern end.

Engels lived century and a half ago and former Slavs of Austro-Hungarian empire have managed to form their own states since then, despite being labelled as untermenschen or barbarians by this fine German gentlemen and predicted to be "smashed and wiped out":
https://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1849/01/13.htm

Then for a time the Slav counter-revolution will sweep down on the Austrian monarchy with all its barbarity, and the camarilla will see what sort of allies it has. But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names.

 

[MutantScalper]

Yea, and? You know, you have probably already as a kid have read more about this, since you're from an ex-communist nation. My knowledge of Engels was that Marx was the 'theory guy' and Engels was the son of a factory owner who asked his dad why are there kids working at the factory his dad owned. Later Engels decided that he wanted to help those kids.

I wouldn't get too fixated on the opinions of the times, socialism to me is about general ideas and about critique of capitalism and especially of unregulated market economy. It isn't about "wiping out Slavs", actually this is the first time I hear about that.

 

[valcik]

I know this shit since Slovakia is actually one of these states populated by former Austrian Slavs, you know? They were my ancestors FFS, I don't need any communism to explain this shit to me.

 

[GonZo_626]

Yea, and? You know, you have probably already as a kid have read more about this, since you're from an ex-communist nation. My knowledge of Engels was that Marx was the 'theory guy' and Engels was the son of a factory owner who asked his dad why are there kids working at the factory his dad owned. Later Engels decided that he wanted to help those kids.

I wouldn't get too fixated on the opinions of the times, socialism to me is about general ideas and about critique of capitalism and especially of unregulated market economy. It isn't about "wiping out Slavs", actually this is the first time I hear about that.

Wow such a nice story about a guy who brought forth some of the most reprehensible regimes in recent history. I mean you country allied itself with Nazis to fight against communism, such an ironic fall. And even if they did start with noble intentions all the people who have been oppressed by it throughout the last 100 years must have it wrong right? All those people died for the betterment of all humans didn't they? The millions of minorities, LGTBQ, and political dissenters? Trying to but a nice face on Socialism and not calling it Communism sure worked in Venezuela right?

Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. And all those who seem to support Socialism/Communism sure cant seem to get out of that insane loop. No matter the wrongs of unregulated free markets (which don't exist as there is always some form of regulation), even at there worst they are still better then most!

 

[Crni Vuk]

Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. And all those who seem to support Socialism/Communism sure cant seem to get out of that insane loop. No matter the wrongs of unregulated free markets (which don't exist as there is always some form of regulation), even at there worst they are still better then most!

I am sure some people here will take what I say out of context or simply read what they want and ignoring the rest. But who cares, I have most of those on my ignore list anyway. I am the bad communist leftist. And that's ok.

First things first, yes socialism as we saw it in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, GDR and Venezuella, is an abomination and some of the worst things we've seen in human history. Socialism, is terrible. No arguing from me here.

My parents however, grew up in a socialist country, the Yugoslavian Republic. I also know a lot of people that grew up in the GDR. Not every state is comparable or acted on the same principle. If you grew up in either Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union or Cambodia, definetly made a difference. People in Yugoslavia enjoyed relativelly high degree of freedom. It was still a terrible system though, no doubts about it.

What ever if Marx or Marxism is to blame for socialism? I mean is capitalism to blame for the Vietnam War or Colonialism? I guess if history was that easy, there would be no reason to study it and to have historians and discussions.

When we look at the history of Socialism and Communism, I think it's important to keep in mind that Marx intention, was not start revolutions. But it's easy to look at it and come to the conclussion, oh well Marx is to blame for it all, particularly if you're not very fond of Marx. What ever if Marx was a democrat, is a different question, but he certainly wasn't a revolutionary. But let us take a look at it:

Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).

What Marx really does well is talking about issues, not finding solutions for it. Soclialism, certainly isn't. But it doesn't take a genious anyway to look at a society where a large number of people are opressed and come to the conclussion that they might start conflicts. History is full of such examples. Marx is interesting in as it describes a new class which emerged with the industrialisation, the so called proletariat and the capitalist as a new elite, as contrast to the agricultural societies which have been very common before the industrialisation. Marxism is a philosophy, not a state theory and the socialism we saw in practise was state capitalism not communism. I quote:

Quite apart from the questionable “Great Man” theory of history implied by this question, the claim concerning the “atrocities in communist countries” and their supposed connection with Marx , presupposes that these countries bore some relationship to what Marx saw as communism. Clearly they did not and in any event the very notion of a communist country would be completely alien to Marx’s way of thinking. Communism, to him, was a world system in which countries would case to exist

More than that , communism to Marx or any Marxist is a stateless, classless moneyless society in which the means of production are owned in common - not by some state or private individual(s). Can anyone point to a single example anywhere where such a society has come into being?

The reality is that that these atrocities were committed by STATE CAPITALIST regimes calling themselves “communist” but who have no connection whatsoever with communism in reality nor have any intention of bringing it about. Also, appalling though such atrocities have been, they are not the prerogative off fake communist regimes alone. The American regime and its allies for example are equally culpable of the most appalling atrocities as the recent history of the Middle East shows

Socialism is not Communism. It's really that simple.

 

[valcik]

My parents however, grew up in a socialist country, the Yugoslavian Republic.

Yugoslavia was another country created by south Slavs after dissolution of Austro-Hungarian empire. Your mother is a Serbian, right? Had she lived hundred years earlier, she would have been called a Slav barbarian from hidebound nation and as such planned to be wiped out with other Slavs by Engels.
Just sayin.

 

[GonZo_626]

I am sure some people here will take what I say out of context or somply read what they want and ignoring the rest. But who cares, I have most of those on my ignore list anyway. I am the bad communist leftist. And that's ok.

First things first, yes socialism as we saw it in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, GDR and Venezuella, is an abomination and some of the worst things we've seen in human history. Socialism, is terrible. No arguing from me here.

My parents however, grew up in a socialist country, the Yugoslavian Republic. I also know a lot of people that grew up in the GDR. Not every state is comparable or acted on the same principle. If you grew up in either Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union or Cambodia, definetly made a difference. People in Yugoslavia enjoyed relativelly high degree of freedom. It was still a terrible system though, no doubts about it.

What ever if Marx or Marxism is to blame for socialism? I mean is capitalism to blame for the Vietnam War or Colonialism? I guess if history was that easy, there would be no reason to study it and to have historians and discussions.

When we look at the history of Socialism and Communism, I think it's important to keep in mind that Marx intention, was not start revolutions. But it's easy to look at it and come to the conclussion, oh well Marx is to blame for it all, particularly if you're not very fond of Marx. What ever if Marx was a democrat, is a different question, but he certainly wasn't a revolutionary. But let us take a look at it:

Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”).

What Marx really does well is talking about issues, not finding solutions for it. Soclialism, certainly isn't. But it doesn't take a genious anyway to look at a society where a large number of people are opressed and come to the conclussion that they might start conflicts. History is full of such examples. Marx is interesting in as it describes a new class which emerged with the industrialisation, the so called proletariat and the capitalist as a new elite, as contrast to the agricultural societies which have been very common before the industrialisation. Marxism is a philosophy, not a state theory and the socialism we saw in practise was state capitalism not communism. I quote:

Quite apart from the questionable “Great Man” theory of history implied by this question, the claim concerning the “atrocities in communist countries” and their supposed connection with Marx , presupposes that these countries bore some relationship to what Marx saw as communism. Clearly they did not and in any event the very notion of a communist country would be completely alien to Marx’s way of thinking. Communism, to him, was a world system in which countries would case to exist

More than that , communism to Marx or any Marxist is a stateless, classless moneyless society in which the means of production are owned in common - not by some state or private individual(s). Can anyone point to a single example anywhere where such a society has come into being?

The reality is that that these atrocities were committed by STATE CAPITALIST regimes calling themselves “communist” but who have no connection whatsoever with communism in reality nor have any intention of bringing it about. Also, appalling though such atrocities have been, they are not the prerogative off fake communist regimes alone. The American regime and its allies for example are equally culpable of the most appalling atrocities as the recent history of the Middle East shows

Socialism is not Communism. It's really that simple.

Hmmm my very first post in this thread has a direct quote from the communist manifesto encouraging revolution:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." From the Communist Manifesto.

And as you can read it is the forcible overthrow, so violent revolutions? You seem to wash over or ignore the facts that communism as has been practiced has followed exactly what Marx wanted. He was nothing but a drunk who lived off of his friends money, so exactly like a good portion of those who think that others who have worked hard in there life should pay for those who have not. Marx is nothing but a liar, and a cheat who has done nothing but bring great misery to the world. Yes free capitalists democracies have done some wrongs, hell they have committed some horrible atrocities themselves, but what they have done is nothing compared to Marx's glorious workers revolution. History is full of examples of socialism/communism starting as such a great thing utopia like even (if you don't mind the slave labour and mass killings….), but then the money runs out, the food runs out, and then the government starts shooting people. Communism/Socialism is the great scam that keeps on killing.

 

[TheGM]

 

[Crni Vuk]

Gonzo, do they say how this 'forcible overthrow' happens? Or do they activelly call for it? Or is it just based on the conditions they observed? You shouldn't forget that both Marx and Engels grew up when the industrialisation was at its peak, they could observe what it did to the British society and later to the German one.

I think what they're actually talking about is the relationship between workers and the owners of the means of production here, which was a very uneven distribution and overall not a very favourable condition for the workers. And when you look at how difficult it was to achieve some of the social advantages we take as granted today, you can clearly see how the people in power, never are very keen on giving it up. In other words, you have one way or antother to force them in to making concessions. Germany alone, had tons of revolts by coal miners, of which some have been quite bloody, before they achieved 8 hour shifts, pensions, sick days, wage continuation, higher wages and so on. Of course this is not always the case, but quite often, at least in the begining of the industrialisation. You had even in the united states some situations that have been pretty viollent regarding strikes, the first unions and injustices. Take the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 and the Bonus Army marchers in 1932 as example.

Many cases in history show us, that a lot of improvements had to be achieved against huge opposition, that's simly natural. Almost no one likes to give up power. The whole civil rights movement, abbolishment of slavery, workers rights, the forming of unions and many other social improvements in sociey are a testimony to that. That doesn't mean that you have to get arms, run out there and overthrow your government to eventually achieve your goals, sadly way to many people take exactly this message from it.

Marx and Engels held the strong believe, that a communist society can not come in action trough mere reforms but only after the collapse of a captialist society, which is the result of the workers revolting against their conditions and the inequality. They never said that this would be a good thing. It was just their hypothesis. In their mind, this forcible overthrow was merely a consequences of a capitalist society in its final stage. What ever if that is true or not, is impossible to say as we never faced such a situation, yet.

You can of course critise it. But I don't think they are calling for revolutions. This is where the socialists are wrong, because in their mind that's what they're are doing, geting to a communist society by establishing state capitalism.

Communism/Socialism is the great scam that keeps on killing.

You can certainly say that about almost every kind of philosphy that's made in to an ideology. You would be surprised, that you can even find buddhists in agreement with murder - even though their religion clearly says they shouldn't.

What kind of message we get and what what conclussion we draw out of it, are often two different things. I am not saying Marx was always correct, hell you should take a lot of things he said with a bag of salt. But that doesn't mean he's responsible for Lenin or Mao. Only Lenin and Mao are responsible for their shit and their followers are responsible for their actions.

Just to say this, socialists often knew that they have been at odds with marxist philosophy and they knew their systems havn't been communist societies. They simply thought, the end justifies the means. They have been moraly and ethically corrupt individuals, hell people like Stalin have been psychopaths. What can you expect from such individuals? They thought they would build communist socities and declared those that disagreed as enemy of the people, tortured and killed them. What they basically created, have been personality cults. You can't blame that on Marx.

 

[valcik]

Marx and Engels held the strong believe, that a communist society can not come in action trough mere reforms but only after the collapse of a captialist society

Also a little bit of tasteful genocide on top of it, as Engels made pretty clear in his works.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

"Genocide! So many people died *under* communism, and proves it's inviable!"
"Indeed, what, 10 million? Beyond the logic of arguing wether how responsible an ideology is for deaths and demise under it, what about the ones *under* capitalism?"
"Those don't count"

 

[valcik]

Engels wrote how whole ethnic group have to die in order to allow what he called a progress. You can be as much of a sarcastic douchebag as you usualy are @Arnust, post unironically some stupid memes on top of it as you do in The Order where arselicking pack gives you these "LIKES" for that shit. Nothing of it can change the simple fact that if Engles lived today and copy-pasted some of his nationalist genocide mongering drivels on your discord, you would have banned him on spot, retard.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Why are you trying to gaslight me with the figure of... Engels and post likes?

Looking it up, the only real and closest comment on genocide seems to be this:

There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.

Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels, the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640 to 1745.

Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800.

Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos.

Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development. That this residual fragment, which is likewise extremely confused, sees its salvation only in a reversal of the whole European movement, which in its view ought to go not from west to east, but from east to west, and that for it the instrument of liberation and the bond of unity is the Russian knout — that is the most natural thing in the world.

Which isn't... really advocating for it? It's a circumstance, just as the one he does regret, of those other peoples that once compounded them. It seems like a very long term concept, which seems to be a common element in the communist thinkers' manifestos and articles. It also says "complete extirpation or loss of their national character", which is a cultural reform, not holocaust. Societies have gone through it before without one.

But yes, Valcik. In the alternate reality where Engles was preserved in a cryopod, woke up and found nothing better to do than to join the NMA Discord server, which I'm not sure how've you got an impression of, he'd probably get banned if he didn't follow the TOS and rules of the service and the channel, like everyone else. And this is proving a point, somehow. I guess your idea is trying to do a very contrived ad homiem, like if an ideology that isn't a cult of personality isn't detachable from certain architects of it, and those advocating for it in any extent, no matter how transformed or reformed it is, are supposed to be blamed by association.

 

[valcik]

I guess your idea is trying to do a very contrived ad homiem, like if an ideology that isn't a cult of personality isn't detachable from certain architects of it, and those advocating for it in any extent, no matter how transformed or reformed it is, are supposed to be blamed by association.

Yes, those who openly admitted they have read complete work and endorse it without differentiate the harmful parts of it, have to be blamed. Not by association though, in better case (Vuk) by not understanding what they've read or not reading all of it, in worse case by appreciating every idea including the harmful.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Blamed for... alleged intellectual dishonesty?

 

[valcik]

Intellectual dishonesty, plain stupidity, or agreement with radical ideas.

You, for instance, have to be blamed for appeasement of intended genocide, with your reasons behind it being unknown to me. You basically wrote Engels did not advocate genocide, despite he wrote this as a closing words in article you've been quoting from, where he acknowledged a whole ethnic minority in Austro-Hungarian empire have to die in order to make "progress":

The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.

Let me rephrase it for you. According to Engels, by physical elimination of your political opponents by means of war you're making a "step forward" toward socialism, which means murder is good as long as you're murdering people with opposing political affinity than yours, since your (Engels') moral compass is the most accurate one. Sounds pretty much as an authoritarian socialist dictatorship to me.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

The way it's phrased, it seems to basically assume they'll wipe each other and themselves out eventually, which probably very much wasn't far off, and in a way was right, of predicting what would come next. If you can't see the difference between

"the nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated" "If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain."

with basically
"Eh when they're culturally assimilated by something else it'll be a good thing", which is pretty shitty but a hardly uncommon mindset for the times I don't need to agree with, and don't, I think you're the stupid and dishonest one.

I'm not sure how can you say I'm sporting "Intellectual dishonesty, plain stupidity, or agreement with radical ideas." when you're the one who's been using a fallacy from the start I didn't bring up, can't seem to get anything more than "akshually genocide inherent engels said it in this one article" and the only thing I remembered of you prior to seeing you again was that when somebody calls you or anyone a nazi, it would immediately trigger, like now, the "maybe you're the real nazi" move which is, generally, an appeasement move. And don't see a problem with "radical" ideologies if they don't ensue mass murder, when they don't. Especially if it's being warped by perspective and you're calling Bernie Sanders or Corbyn radicals.

 

[valcik]

I think you're the stupid and dishonest one.

Fair enough, be my guest. Also funny to see Godwin's law finally kicking in on your part only to make such a strong argument as this one. LOL

I'm not sure how can you say I'm sporting "Intellectual dishonesty, plain stupidity, or agreement with radical ideas."

That was not addressed to you. I thought it was pretty clear what I'm blaming you for in that post, wasn't it? You seem a little bit upset and very irrational here, chill out.

when you're the one who's been using a fallacy from the start I didn't bring up, can't seem to get anything more than "akshually genocide inherent engels said it in this one article" and the only thing I remembered of you prior to seeing you again was that when somebody calls you or anyone a nazi, it would immediately trigger, like now, the "maybe you're the real nazi" move which is, generally, an appeasement move.

Jumping to your usual sarcastic douchebaggery position, aren't you? THAT would make you perfectly right, haha. Keep going.

Also you just have made clear that you don't understand what you have read, you seem to be fine with dehumanizing whole ethnic group, appeasing planned genocide and complete cultural eradication of ethnic minority as a kosher move with reasoning summed up as "it was commong thing at the times", which indeed make you just the same genocidal crypto-nazi as Vuk. And also retard, which I already wrote.

Also explain to me how many articles are needed where someone represents his nationalist genocide-approving stance in order to make clear he's a nationalist genocide-approving bastard, please. One is not enough obviously, how many then? Ten articles? Hundred? Arnust please, this broken logic of yours is extremely lame.

Also quote me where I called Sanders or Corbyn to be radicals, please.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

Yeah, Hitler is totally irrelevant when talking about 20th century radical ideologies, doesn't matter at all. I also keep failing how am I supposed to answer for Engels. If you're that cross grab a time machine and ask him, fuck off.

Jumping to your usual sarcastic douchebaggery position, aren't you? THAT would make you perfectly right, haha. Keep going.

How's that sarcasm when it's a synposis of this last page, and the post above this one?

Also quote me where I called Sanders or Corbyn to be radicals, please.

You as in One, Anyone. Not you, Yourself.

 

[valcik]

Yeah, Hitler is totally irrelevant when talking about 20th century radical ideologies, doesn't matter at all.

Engels was born, lived, and died in 19th century. What made you think I'm referring to 20th century by quoting Engels?

I also keep failing how am I supposed to answer for Engels.

You are not, what made you think you are? Did someone ask you to answer for Engels? It's your own initiative, you started appeasing his stance, so you fuck off.

How's that sarcasm when it's a synposis of this last page, and the post above this one?

Sorry, for a moment word "akshually" made me think you're sarcastic.

You as in One, Anyone. Not you, Yourself.

Okay, no need to quote me then. Just for the record - I don't think Sanders or Corbyn are radicals.