"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (1 Viewer)

[zstar]

There's no point arguing with Communists because until they've experienced the myth that is Communism they will continue to argue with you and attempt to refute you.

So I suggest people let these guys tout how "great" Communism is. If they ever see the true evil nature of Communism then they will finally come to their senses.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Oh that ignores all the crap that's placed on Cuba by capitalist countries. So we assume that capitalism is the epitome of success? Yes. But when I look at a world dominated by capitalism I don't see any success. I see epic fail. Go suck a cock you cunt.

 

[zstar]

Oh that ignores all the crap that's placed on Cuba by capitalist countries. So we assume that capitalism is the epitome of success? Yes. But when I look at a world dominated by capitalism I don't see any success. I see epic fail. Go suck a cock you cunt.

Capitalism hasn't failed.


It's the lack of it that has let to failure. Too much government control and too much Socialist interference and the lack of faith in free markets is why these things happen.


You see the elites of this world tout the same message as the Marxists. The elites want to destroy Capitalism so they can have more power over you, All these Neo Cons and other globalists are Trotskyites and Socialists.


Do you think they care about free markets? They want to destroy it so they can convince you that something that has worked well for hundreds of years has all of a sudden failed. That is a lie by the world globalist elite.

 

[auerbach]

Oh that ignores all the crap that's placed on Cuba by capitalist countries. So we assume that capitalism is the epitome of success? Yes. But when I look at a world dominated by capitalism I don't see any success. I see epic fail. Go suck a cock you cunt.

Ad hominem...absolutely fantastic debating. You see failure when you look at the capitalist world? Australia is a failure? Japan is a failure? Germany, France, Britain, New Zealand? All failures? You can not fall on the argument that communist countries are victims of capitalist countries. First of all, it simply proves that communism results in economic vulnerability, and more importantly it ignores the facts. Look at China's growth and economic performance pre-capitalism and then post-capitalism. Tell me which China is a success and which is a failure. If China has fallen "victim" to capitalism then I'm sure Cuba and an array of other countries would do well to be victimised. A world dominated by capitalism does indeed play host to a few "epic failures" a huge number of which are communist failures.

 

[44Ronin]

The lure of Communism/Socialism is the sugar coated pill to all those che shirt wearing morons who dream to make society fall into a trap. This trap, is wherein the extreme and flawed ideology of the socialists/communists come to dominate the center of politics. This ALWAYS turns out to be a repression of political dissent and the manifestation of free thought. This always turns out to be the downright slaughter of the ruling class. So much for being ethical? An eye for a scratch?

There is nothing new in the system, it doesn't free people nor does it empower them. Making people beleive that what they are doing for the delusion label of revolution, class struggle and 'equality' that the mindless followers think is ethically superior is nonsensical rhetoric.

If Socialism is so inherently right and superior then why has every group of people to partake and sucessfully gain power, do so by the means of slaying whole classes of people? It is because it is simply not wanted by the same masses that marx had a hard on for when writing his complete trite. The only means the reds have of getting their way is to slaughter people in cold blood. It is no pathway to freedom.

You can scream Cuba all you want but do not forget that Che and Castro were responsible for slaying whole classes of people in cuba. Che also provided guns to children, but of course there's nothing unethical about that since he is a commie, right?

FACT. Marx's flawed ideology which is a complete wank for intellectuals, has resulted in the most deaths and slaughters in the 21st century. Through genocide, forced labour camps , five year (slavery) plans and political assasinations of whole ethnic groups to people who where simply wealthy or enemies of the state.

Now, put on your tin foil hat theory and try to argue that somehow WE made them intiate their political slaughters, including yes you beloved cuba *wank wank*. I wouldn't expect anything less from a mindless drone who believes in the dogma of Marx.

 

[auerbach]

You can not even say that capitalism can force communist countries to do something. By definition capitalism is not an organised "thing" it's not an army or a tangible force. It's not an organised political system like communism is. Capitalism is simply a way in which business is conducted in an economy. It means free choice. How anyone can claim that capitlism is in a state to influence anything is absurd.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Capitalism hasn't failed.

Has too

 

[souadhaneen]

Has too

Very true

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Anyway this mystery about which of the two economic systems is best is over. Let us begin solving the problem: Who thought it would be funny to lay a steaming chocolate hotdog in the urinal? Mmmkay?

 

[auerbach]

Anyway this mystery about which of the two economic systems is best is over. Let us begin solving the problem: Who thought it would be funny to lay a steaming chocolate hotdog in the urinal? Mmmkay?

I believe it was Marx.

 

[44Ronin]

I am sure the soviets won the economic battle.

Oh wait, they didn't.

Doctors left en masse because they made less than a steel worker.
Raw talent left en masse for political asylum.

Great system.

 

[zstar]

Has too

No it hasn't


Putting Socialism into Free markets has.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

all hail communism.

STFO. Your one liners weren't funny 10 pages ago, they aren't funny now and they sure as hell will not be funny in the future.

[...] I freely admit to not having the necessary background [...] Then again that does invalidate my points

Correct. However this does not reverse their refutation.

as political theory often requires no reading- it is SUBJECTIVE at heart.

Indeed, political theory is subjective, however I would not call it "at heart". I think it would be more correct to say "based on the social relations in which the individual exists and the given political, legal and ideological structures in which they act". But this is only in passing.

If you were to actually run for government

There is no reason as to why I would want to run for government.

and the majority of the population are not informed.

I don't understand this. Above you stated that political theory is subjective and a matter for the individual to decide. Now you state that the majority are "not informed". Doesn't this imply your dissatisfaction at the decision of the "masses" and hence your attempt to apply an objectivity to political theory?

Getting to the point, you still completely diverted my question.

If I have, I apologise. Which question have I diverted? "Why do I care so much"? Truth be told I find it a rather baffling question. It seems to me not like a legitimate question but more like your attempt to make me out to look "strange" by assuming your own political apathy (the potential motives for why I have mentioned above) to be general and "common sense".

I am truly interested, as I find it rare, that a 16-17 year is so fundamentally attached to a philosophical concept at your age (I’m not denying your knowledge here and nor am I insulting you) and I was truly wondering what factors motivate you to take such a strong ideological stance?

I have actually answered this question (atleast in part, in response to Enteebee) above.

The consciousness of the individual is determined by their position within the given social relations of production, the material conditions of the society in which they exist and the political, legal and ideological superstructure which structures it [their consciousness]. (We could also discuss as the Journal Kolinko does factors such as the relation of the individual to the wage form, to the product of their labour, to the act of labour itself and to other classes and members of his or her class)

Long story short, I (fortunately) happen to have found myself in position which allowed for the growth of a revolutionary "class consciousness". I hope that answers your question.

To simply rephrase, what are your current problems with the Australian political system?

First let me say that the political system of Australia is not our fundamental concern. Our fundamental concern is the world capitalist mode of production in which it functions.

To answer the actual question, the modern Australian political system like all current world political systems is one for the perpetuation of class rule. For this thread I'm not bothered going into detail, but if you are interested some relevant material includes:

• Illusions of Equality: The Capitalist State - Rick Kuhn
• Marxist theory of the State - Ernest Mandel
• Marx on Democratic Forms of Government - Hal Draper
• The State and Revolution - V.I. Lenin
• Workers' Councils - Anton Pannekoek

Conversely, what do you agree with currently in our adopted political system?

Any agreements would be superficial. For example I find that the "democratic principle" is applicable to the selection of government and administration in a socialist society. However, whilst the two may share this form the actual content of the "democracy" varies. Whilst bourgeois democracy proclaims itself as a pure democracy, non-discriminatory and based on the principle of universal suffrage, proletarian democracy recognises the need for the complete and thorough exclusion of the ruling class and it's remnants from any right to vote or participate in government or administration.

Now where you let your self down is the winded posts where you consistently imply your superiority on the subject.

You are correct here. Problem is I'm really sick and tired of this debate. It's been going on now for 34 pages and I'm at the end of my tether with the ignorance of posters who think they are the bearers of the profound truth, unrealised to myself, that "communism doesn't work".

We do get it.

If you [I am referring to all posters and not yourself] get it, then why the constant repetition of the same old refute arguments and non-arguments (ie. straw men and other logical fallacies)

Of course most posters have not read what you have, but that does not fully invalidate their opinion

Correct, their opinion is still valid, however, their argument is not.

If Communism is so far from the ideal that it is seen to be by the average, uninformed individual then why is this the case? Why the negative stigma?

I thought it would have been a fairly obvious result of the authoritarian state-capitalist regimes that cloaked themselves in the red flag, no?

Also, couldn't the same argument be used against some branches of Christianity, Islam etc.? (and no please, don't turn this into a debate on religious fundamentalism, it's just and analogy.)

However, a major pitfall in your style is a deviation from the posts content towards unnecessary, rhetorical questions which add no substance and bring inconsistencies to your argument.You don't need a definition for every word somebody writes.

I'm going to have to draw the line here. I ask the questions I do for two reasons.

Firstly is that they are necessary, how can you debate without establishing definitions! The way I define "communism", "capitalism", "human nature" and other such terms is completely different from the manner in which they do. As such if we debate without establishing proper, common definitions we will be debating different things and it will get us no where.

Secondly, asking the poster making the argument to define their terms is also a test of their competence and knowledge of what they are speaking. I assure you that many in this thread who have posted a meaningless one line "argument" without and explanation or definition are just regurgitating the same old propaganda without any understanding. This is of course not to say that they can't have opinions, but it shows quite clearly that they do not know of what they are talking about and as such it will be necessary to define the terms for them and refute the argument subsequently.

Perhaps you should start supplying the answers to the 30 or so questions you raised on the previous page.

Over the past 34 pages I have done so dozens of times. Further more, it would make no sense to define the terms my opponents are using since they may well be completely different.

Also, the ad hominem regarding a poster, his predicted UAI and academic ability is not only completely false but completely irrelevant.

I do it for the lulz, despite the fact that I know it's irrelevant (though I wouldn't be so certain about completely false however...)

Why? I mean making the assumption that the theory has 'failed' (many would agree, others here would argue against) then why should we debate something that we have labelled as unsuccessful? Is that not a waste of resources if it was undertaken at a serious level?

Both the academic (and the communist) would say no. The debate may be of a purely historical or theoretical interest, unless you think such debates are "useless", in which case I'm sure you will agree with the need to throw much of philosophy out the window?

Since communism is a complete paradigm shift from our current political system, and realistically we know that completely shifting our political system is not going to occur, would we not be better off debating new ways of improving our current system rather then debating an ‘assumed’ impossible philosophy?

Firstly, don't unnecessarily steal terms such as "paradigm shift" (whatever that is really meant to mean).

Secondly, the question of whether the "completely shifting our political system" is possible all you need to look at is history. From primitive society to slave society, from slave society to feudalism, to feudalism to capitalism. But then again, isn't history such a "waste of resources"...

Thirdly, if communism is a way of "improving our current system" isn't it worth discussion in your books? What makes it an "impossible philosophy"? Assumption or thorough debate?

 

[Zeitgeist308]

the burden of proof is not upon me.

Actually, the burden of proof is on yourself as you are the one making the assertion.

If I may quote you on this (from pages 32):

It is indeed a pathetic and childish excuse for a political theory

You are the one who makes the assertion therefore you are the party who has the burden of proof. Either justify that communist political theory is "pathetic and childish" or revoke your claim.

Why don't you tell me of one successful communist system that exists beyond the realms of theory.

There have been none either in the "real world" or in "theory". Marxists are not utopian socialists (please refer to the previous 30 pages and my signature for my details)

You know as well as I that that argument is often used.

I have never heard a Marxist make this claim before. The only people that do are opponents of Marxism. In this thread for example, find me a Marxist that makes the claim, becasue I guarantee you, you will find none (and no, Nebuchanezzar, Melanie and Sam04u are not Marxists, they are trolls). I, on the other hand, can find you multiple opponents of Marxist theory who do make this claim. Strange that.

Neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism work in practice.

I found an example! That was easy...

Wait, your not a Marxist are you?

In all seriousness, once again the burden n proof is on you. You make the assertion that "Neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism work in practice". Now back it up or retract it.

Both systems are crude and vague ideologies that rely upon nations of robots if ever they are to function properly.

Of course as to why, you don't explain.

Communism? Dictatorship? I don't follow you.

My point is that to say "it works in theory" is a ridiculous argument, for in theory so too does a dictatorship work.

Firstly, you are the only one using that arguement here.
Secondly, you didn't answer my question. What does communism have to do with dictatorship?

A perfect world by my definition is quite obviously different to your perfect world. When I say perfect world, I am pointing out the fact that for communism to work, it relies upon a world of non-questioners perhaps not a perfect world but a world without revolt or sense of injustice despite its obvious presence. I know Marxists do not claim the world is perfect, if they did their ideolgies would not be needed would they? Marxists in fact say that a Marxist world would be perfect (at least closer to perfection) but as discussed herein that claim is flawed because for Marxism to work the world would already need to be "perfect".

You really aught to think what your writing through before you post it, becasue this makes absolutely no sense what so ever. All you do is blatantly contradict your own arguement (that Marxists view the world as perfect) and then claim that the contradiction is my own, despite never claiming the need for a "perfect world" and ackownledging the "imperfection" (lets keep it simple and in terms you will understand) of the existing world as the basis of my politics.

Also, ignore Nebuchanezzar, he is not a Marxist, he is merely a troll. His opinions have nothing in common with my own.

Communism relies on the absurd and the completely irrational.

*Cough* Burden of proof *cough*

 

[Zeitgeist308]

There's no point arguing with Communists because until they've experienced the myth that is Communism they will continue to argue with you and attempt to refute you.

So I suggest people let these guys tout how "great" Communism is. If they ever see the true evil nature of Communism then they will finally come to their senses.

Zstar you are pathetic. Your "arguments" were smashed to pieces 10 pages. I'm surprised you even had the hide to return. Matter of fact you were only able to do it with the support of other posters, returning only to assert victory bereft of argument.

You see failure when you look at the capitalist world? Australia is a failure? Japan is a failure? Germany, France, Britain, New Zealand? All failures?

Yes I do. Where you see success on the basis of statistics, I see failure for the working class in the misery and exploitation of the wage-labour relation.

In response to your argument re Cuba and China. This has no bearing on my argument. I am a Left-Communist and as such adhere to the theory of state-capitalism for the so-called "socialist states". The series of articles What was the USSR? published in Aufheben explains the theory well if you are at all interested (I provided the links early on in the thread, like 5 or something)

The lure of Communism/Socialism is the sugar coated pill to all those che shirt wearing morons who dream to make society fall into a trap.

1. I do not own a Che Shirt, nor do I want to. In my opinion Che was not a revolutionary in any sense.

2. My intent is not to "make society fall into a trap", rather, it is to liberate the working class.

This ALWAYS turns out to be a repression of political dissent and the manifestation of free thought.

Sorry but assumptions and inductive reasoning are not substitutes for argument.

This has hitherto turned out to be the downright slaughter of the ruling class and it's replacement with a new one wrapped in the red flag.

*Fixed*

So much for being ethical? An eye for a scratch?

Here in lines the fundamental basis of your argument. Marxism is not moralism! Ethics are of no concern to us (matter of fact I myself am a moral nihilist, but that's another issue completely). however, by saying this I am not attempting to "justify" the actions of the various "workers states" on the 20th Century, as noted before I uphold the theory of state-capitalism however accusing them of being unethical is not a legitimate criticism.

There is nothing new in the system, it doesn't free people nor does it empower them.

Maybe we are talking about different "systems". As I have asked numerous time in this thread, would you care to define and explain what characterises the "system" you are talking about.

Making people beleive that what they are doing for the delusion label of revolution, class struggle and 'equality' that the mindless followers think is ethically superior is nonsensical rhetoric.

As a "mindless follower" I certainly do not think communism is "ethically superior" in any way to capitalism. Maybe you would care to quote Marx on this one, after all I may not be following the master in his every word and after all, we wouldn't want that.

If Socialism is so inherently right and superior

Which it isn't...

then why has every group of people to partake and sucessfully gain power, do so by the means of slaying whole classes of people?

Again, not that I am defending the actions of the various "socialist states", but this is rubbish. For example, if you knew the first thing about the October Revolution and of the policies of the RSFSR during the civil war you would know that it was Lenin himself who encourages the appeasement of the "middle peasants" as well as the employment of former owners, Tsarist officials and "bourgeois specialists" in the management of industry, the state and the red army.

It is because it is simply not wanted by the same masses that marx had a hard on for when writing his complete trite.

Please tell me, have you even ever read Marx?

The only means the reds have of getting their way is to slaughter people in cold blood. It is no pathway to freedom.

I would agree that the path to Communism is not (necessarily) one of mass "slaughter in cold blood", however you provide no evidence as to why violence bars the way to "freedom".

You can scream Cuba all you want but do not forget that Che and Castro were responsible for slaying whole classes of people in cuba.

Quite frankly I'm not interested in the means by which they seized state power, What I care about in the role they played in the post-"revolutionary" socialist state (that is, as part of the ruling clique).

FACT. Marx's flawed ideology which is a complete wank for intellectuals, has resulted in the most deaths and slaughters in the 21st century. Through genocide, forced labour camps , five year (slavery) plans and political assasinations of whole ethnic groups to people who where simply wealthy or enemies of the state.

FACT. Your a pathetic moralist you can't piece together a sensible argument not loaded with straw men, caricatures and appeal to a priori ethical systems.
(See I can use caps lock on words to make them true as well )

 

[Zeitgeist308]

By definition communism is not an organised "thing" it's not an army or a tangible force. It, like capitalism, is not an organised political system. Communism is simply a mode of production. How anyone can claim that communism is in a political system is absurd.

*Fixed* I've said all this before. Communism is not a political system! We aren't even talking about the same thing here! Christ, what is so hard about this people!

To everyone:

Not only am I really fed up with this debate, since I'm going back to school tomorrow I'm not going to bother to reply to any of your posts if all you are going to do is repeat this same old rubbish again. If you have a serious arguement or post I will reply but otherwise, go read fucking a book, and if that's too hard for you, flick through this thread instead.

 

[Animals]

*Fixed* I've said all this before. Communism is not a political system! We aren't even talking about the same thing here! Christ, what is so hard about this people!

To everyone:

Not only am I really fed up with this debate, since I'm going back to school tomorrow I'm not going to bother to reply to any of your posts if all you are going to do is repeat this same old rubbish again. If you have a serious arguement or post I will reply but otherwise, go read fucking a book, and if that's too hard for you, flick through this thread instead.

I can read. I'm illiterate.

 

[auerbach]

Actually, the burden of proof is on yourself as you are the one making the assertion.

If I may quote you on this (from pages 32):

The burden of proof does not fall on somebody to disprove something. I am making the assertion that communism DOES NOT work. In effect I'm pleading not-guilty, or at least the negative. You are the affirmative, you are claiming that communism works, you must provide evidence of its value. Or would you prefer me to disprove its value. All I must do is provide a list of communist countries past and present. That should do all the proof for me. But like I say, the argument is over whether communism works, and if you believe it does you must prove it.

You are the one who makes the assertion therefore you are the party who has the burden of proof. Either justify that communist political theory is "pathetic and childish" or revoke your claim.

Once again, my "pathetic and chilidish" statement was in rebuttal really to the claim that communism can ever work. I'm arguing that it does not work, which I believe we could safely say renders it "pathetic and childish". The burden of proof still rests with you to say that communism works. If this were a debate about capitalism, then indeed the burden would be upon me to provide proof of its success...a fairly easy task I imagine.

There have been none either in the "real world" or in "theory". Marxists are not utopian socialists (please refer to the previous 30 pages and my signature for my details)

So there are no utopian socialist states that have ever worked. There also are not any successful scientific socialist states in existence. (pardon the alliteration) I don't mind which theory you adhere to, neither of them work.

I have never heard a Marxist make this claim before. The only people that do are opponents of Marxism. In this thread for example, find me a Marxist that makes the claim, becasue I guarantee you, you will find none (and no, Nebuchanezzar, Melanie and Sam04u are not Marxists, they are trolls). I, on the other hand, can find you multiple opponents of Marxist theory who do make this claim. Strange that.

If I'm arguing against those trolls when I say it, then I'm arguing against those trolls when I say it. People do make that claim, and they are the objects of my attack. Marxists don't claim it works in theory hey? They may not say it directly, but read over your pages of debate and tell me if your discussion is about a real world system, or the theory of Marxism. Marxists DO say it. If it doesn't work in practice, and you say you don't claim it works in theory...then where the hell does it work?

I found an example! That was easy...

Wait, your not a Marxist are you?

No, there you are right. I most definitely am not a Marxist.

In all seriousness, once again the burden n proof is on you. You make the assertion that "Neither scientific socialism nor utopian socialism work in practice". Now back it up or retract it.

Saying that "God does not exist" does not require me to disprove God. Saying that "I am not guilty" does not require a proof of innocence. "Communism does not work in practice" does not require me to explore every communist state and assign it a quantitative or qualitative measure of failure or success. It simply brings into the spotlight the need for you to provide evidence of its success. I could provide a list of failed communist countries sure, but I need not. YOU must prove its success and value, not me its lack thereof.

Of course as to why, you don't explain.

Good point...(sarcastic cough)

Firstly, you are the only one using that arguement here.
Secondly, you didn't answer my question. What does communism have to do with dictatorship?

For the third time: both communism and dictatorship work in theory. I could have said time travel. Both communism and time travel work in theory too. They need not have anything in common apart from the fact that in theory they work. May I point out that I do not believe communism even works in theory, I'm just attacking the argument as explained.

You really aught to think what your writing through before you post it, becasue this makes absolutely no sense what so ever. All you do is blatantly contradict your own arguement (that Marxists view the world as perfect) and then claim that the contradiction is my own, despite never claiming the need for a "perfect world" and ackownledging the "imperfection" (lets keep it simple and in terms you will understand) of the existing world as the basis of my politics.

Also, ignore Nebuchanezzar, he is not a Marxist, he is merely a troll. His opinions have nothing in common with my own.

You really should avoid arguing ad-hominem, it simply hands me the argument and is a sign of weakness in debate. All I'm saying is that the Marxist theory relies upon a "perfect" world if it is to work in practice. I don't mean literally perfect I mean perfect like I discussed in my above post. I am also pointing out the inherrent problem to this. If we had such a world anyway, there'd be no need for Marxism, Marxists would be preaching to the choir. So the Marxist ideology does not even work (or at least is not needed) in a "perfect" world.

*Cough* Burden of proof *cough*

The burden of proof still is with you sir. I'll provide a list of countries if you really want, but again I'll give you the opportunity to provide evidence of communism's success.

 

[kokodamonkey]

Anyway this mystery about which of the two economic systems is best is over. Let us begin solving the problem: Who thought it would be funny to lay a steaming chocolate hotdog in the urinal? Mmmkay?

same people that are responsible for 9/11.

 

[auerbach]

*Fixed* I've said all this before. Communism is not a political system! We aren't even talking about the same thing here! Christ, what is so hard about this people!

You are grossly wrong in your comparison of communism to capitalism. Communism is indeed a political system. It preaches active removal of classes, removal of religion, equal sharing of resources, heavy government involvement, closed economies etc. Capitalism does not "preach" anything except perhaps liberal government involvement. Communism is a set of beliefs that dictates an active path. Things that SHOULD be done. Communism can influence people to an extent that capitalism could never dream of.