"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (3 Viewers)

[44Ronin]

Secondly, what is inherently wrong about the limitation of "peoples expression of their own political leanings"? (Note this is a not an attempt at apologia for the practices of the "socialist states")

Everything is wrong with it. I don't limit your ability to express yourself even if i think marxism/socialism is a delusional cult. You are free to discuss what you think. I won't stop you

One size fits all or how the socialist system is always ultimately about programming people and social engineering. You can deny those actions of followers of Marxist ideology until the cows come home, but they ALL desire to enslave society with a Marxist mandate.

I will summarise Marxist Dogma/Ideology

#1. Economic class is the most important feature of society. (WRONG)

#2. All classes are defined as their relationship to means of production (WRONG)

#3. In capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production (WRONG), the proletariat their labour. Peasants are stuck in rural idiocy (WRONG)

#4. All History is the history of class struggle (WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG) this is known as historical materialism

#5. The state is the means whereby the ruling class forcibly maintains its rule over the other classes. (WRONG)

#6 Early man hunter/gatherer was communist (WRONG) All barbarism was due to the rule of chiefs - Good Society in history was communist (BUUUULLLLSHIIIT) All bad society in history can be blamed on not being communist (BULLSHHHHIIIIT)

#7 Struggles in history are mostly class struggles (BULLLSHHITTT)

#8 New classes gain power by struggle. (BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT) Revolution is necessarily violent because the ruling class does not want to give up power. (FAIR STATEMENT)

#9 Capitalism creates the proletariat who have nothing to sell but their labor by bankrupting the artisan classes and the petty bourgeoisie and driving them into the proletariat. (OH I'm so FUCKING SURE the Proletariat have bankrupted me as a musician...I think my eyes fell out of my socket

#10 Under capitalism the progressive class is the proletariat which is destined to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, which will eventually evolve into communism.) (this point is a delusional and sycophantic wet dream! )

#11 Historical materialism is the marxist methodology for interpreting history ( That is, find something and somehow give Marxism kudos via it. Not a real history methodology at all but rather a pathetic rhetorical device employed by Marx to lead the gullible and uneducated and generally lame )

#12 The main feature of socialism is public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange ( Government owns everything, individuals and self organising groups have no power)

And my favourite:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, have vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of the co-operative wealth flow more abundantly - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe upon its banners: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Marx: Turning humans into machines since 1867!

As you can see Marxist ideology/stupidity is a one size fits all, black or white dogma. IT FUCKING FAILS ON MANY LEVELS.

I would rather fight and die than to live under Marxist social engineering (the natural end of marxism). I know these other guys who were into social engineering and they wore brown and blue.

 

[lionking1191]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

Thank you for clarifying.



I admit I am far from an expert re the life and politics of Stalin. Despite this I think the views presented by academics such as those you listed are on "the fringe".

you are, of course, entitled to your views on the matter, but please allow me the opportunity to persuade you. to be absolutely clear, my argument is that stalin was not a follower of marxism and marxist-leninism, but only saw its merits only through its potential to yield political power.

here i quote Vadin Rogovin - a self-proclaimed marxist. "[under stalin] bolshevik type of consciousness virtually disappeared - characterised by adherence to ideals of socialist equality, social justice and internationalism."

rogovin further asserts that it was stalin who introduced nationalism into the thinking of the party. while he has been criticised as being intent on rehabilitating the russian socialist cause, it is my opinion that his criticism of stalin stands.

as for stalin's policies, 'socialism in one country' becomes the obvious epiphet of the ideological deviation from marxism. i further introduce edward acton regarding the matter of stalin's latter reforms. here acton contends that stalin's motives were not so altruistic but rather ' a part of his desire to create a totalitarian dictatorship.'

vincent barnett even go as far as claiming that that stalin was the architect of the failure of communism, and while an assessment of stalin would invariably be complicated by the socio-cultural and political climate of his zeitgeist, it is my view that his ideological underpinnings, or rather, lack of, is quite transparent.

 

[lionking1191]

Everything is wrong with it. I don't limit your ability to express yourself even if i think marxism/socialism is a delusional cult. You are free to discuss what you think. I won't stop you

One size fits all or how the socialist system is always ultimately about programming people and social engineering. You can deny those actions of followers of Marxist ideology until the cows come home, but they ALL desire to enslave society with a Marxist mandate.

I will summarise Marxist Dogma/Ideology

#1. Economic class is the most important feature of society. (WRONG)

#2. All classes are defined as their relationship to means of production (WRONG)

#3. In capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production (WRONG), the proletariat their labour. Peasants are stuck in rural idiocy (WRONG)

#4. All History is the history of class struggle (WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG) this is known as historical materialism

#5. The state is the means whereby the ruling class forcibly maintains its rule over the other classes. (WRONG)

#6 Early man hunter/gatherer was communist (WRONG) All barbarism was due to the rule of chiefs - Good Society in history was communist (BUUUULLLLSHIIIT) All bad society in history can be blamed on not being communist (BULLSHHHHIIIIT)

#7 Struggles in history are mostly class struggles (BULLLSHHITTT)

#8 New classes gain power by struggle. (BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT) Revolution is necessarily violent because the ruling class does not want to give up power. (FAIR STATEMENT)

#9 Capitalism creates the proletariat who have nothing to sell but their labor by bankrupting the artisan classes and the petty bourgeoisie and driving them into the proletariat. (OH I'm so FUCKING SURE the Proletariat have bankrupted me as a musician...I think my eyes fell out of my socket

#10 Under capitalism the progressive class is the proletariat which is destined to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, which will eventually evolve into communism.) (this point is a delusional and sycophantic wet dream! )

#11 Historical materialism is the marxist methodology for interpreting history ( That is, find something and somehow give Marxism kudos via it. Not a real history methodology at all but rather a pathetic rhetorical device employed by Marx to lead the gullible and uneducated and generally lame )

#12 The main feature of socialism is public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange ( Government owns everything, individuals and self organising groups have no power)

And my favourite:



Marx: Turning humans into machines since 1867!

As you can see Marxist ideology/stupidity is a one size fits all, black or white dogma. IT FUCKING FAILS ON MANY LEVELS.

I would rather fight and die than to live under Marxist social engineering (the natural end of marxism). I know these other guys who were into social engineering and they wore brown and blue.

1. you misinterpret marx.
2. 'it fucking fails' does not explain why it's wrong.
3. marxism was reactionary. i.e it was a product of its context. it provides us with a way of interpreting societal progress and evolution. its principal flaw stems from its failure to account for the flexibility and adaptability of the capitalist system (eg. trade unions)

 

[44Ronin]

1. you misinterpret marx.

NO. What I did do was avoid biting his rhetorical bait, and came to a conclusion of my own mind's making.


2. 'it fucking fails' does not explain why it's wrong.[/quote]

It's wrong because the ultimate end is that of social engineering to create a one dimensional society. Remove the chaos of our existence and in effect we are slaves to the system. It's end is to fool humans into a particular dogma.

The problem is that a system should have no inherent dogma so people can enjoy better freedoms of thought and expression. Marxism is a very hollow look at life which only looks at materialism.

3. marxism was reactionary. i.e it was a product of its context. it provides us with a way of interpreting societal progress and evolution. its principal flaw stems from its failure to account for the flexibility and adaptability of the capitalist system (eg. trade unions)

Marx was reactionary was to create a giantly absurd Enthymeme explaining how the whole world works in socio economicfunction. Obviously ignoring his own limitations in which he obviously never comprehended the fact that chaos plays a giant part in the way society works. Also he thought he could predict the future.

Marx is the ultimate oracle to those who invest into delusional naivety.

 

[lionking1191]

NO. What I did do was avoid biting his rhetorical bait, and came to a conclusion of my own mind's making.


2. 'it fucking fails' does not explain why it's wrong

It's wrong because the ultimate end is that of social engineering to create a one dimensional society. Remove the chaos of our existence and in effect we are slaves to the system. It's end is to fool humans into a particular dogma.

The problem is that a system should have no inherent dogma so people can enjoy better freedoms of thought and expression. Marxism is a very hollow look at life which only looks at materialism.



Marx was reactionary was to create a giantly absurd Enthymeme explaining how the whole world works in socio economicfunction. Obviously ignoring his own limitations in which he obviously never comprehended the fact that chaos plays a giant part in the way society works. Also he thought he could predict the future.

Marx is the ultimate oracle to those who invest into delusional naivety.

i concede that marx did not take into account the influence and power of human emotions.

in essence, marx attempted to develop laws to explain human behaviour and social evolution (my personal view on this matter is that this attempt was futile and flawed from the beginning). however i would draw attention to the fact that marx himself never envisioned the social engineering you referred to, and least of all, social slavery and one dimensionality.

 

[44Ronin]

i concede that marx did not take into account the influence and power of human emotions.

in essence, marx attempted to develop laws to explain human behaviour and social evolution (my personal view on this matter is that this attempt was futile and flawed from the beginning). however i would draw attention to the fact that marx himself never envisioned the social engineering you referred to, and least of all, social slavery and one dimensionality.

His social theory is the first part of social engineering. The theory. Just as hitlers eugenics (a form of social engineering) had a theory behind it as well.. It's the pillar of the type of social engineering. It's a theory that aims at elliciting a response (Revolution , as the commies cry)

He did more than make laws, he tried to prophesise results and consequences. Which is clearly megalomania if you ask me.

 

[moll.]

He did more than make laws, he tried to prophesise results and consequences. Which is clearly megalomania if you ask me.

No worse than most religious dogma. Yet they're easily accepted by the masses. Why not Marx too?

 

[Zeitgeist308]

It ultimately comes down to this: does communism work in practice? The burden of proof rests with you to provide examples of such, and if you can't see that then unfortunately this debate will never get anywhere. You think it works in practice, I don't.

I'm afraid you are confused here. I have not, do not and will not claim that “communism works in practice”. I am not arguing this at all. What I am arguing is the negative of your position (ie. I disagree with your assertion that “communism doesn't work in practice”), not the inverse (ie. Communism works in practice).

I hope we are on the same page now.

You think it works in practice, I don't. The evidence is explicit on my behalf: it never has.

Incorrect. The claim that “Communism does not work in practice” is completely illogical. Why? Because it is impossible to prove. Whilst are correct (and I agree with you) that “communism has not worked in practice hitherto”, this is not ample prove of communism inability to ever work in practice (as implied by the statement “communism does not work in practice”) for if tomorrow a global communist society was established it will have invalidated your thesis.

The burden of proof now rests with you, to provide an example suggesting otherwise.

I can not prove that “communism works in practice” (at this present moment), hence why I do not claim it does.

I think you meant something else to what you wrote? I'm confused.

No I meant exactly what I wrote; you carry the burden of proof for the thesis that communism does not work in practice, something which as I have already explained can not be proved.

No you are wrong on that point, not being able to prove something doesn't work, does not render arguing against it illogical.

No I am not wrong here at all, it is you who is reading into my posts more than is there. You are correct to say that “ not being able to prove something doesn't work, does not render arguing against it illogical”, however what you do not realise is that the case you are making against communism is not merely the negative of the claim “Communism works”, but it's inverse. Only in so far as you are arguing that “Communism does not work” is you argument is illogical.

Nobody can ever prove that God definitely doesn't exist, but arguing against his existence is logical and necessary. Just as arguing against communism is logical and necessary.

Agreed.

I'm sure they are accurate representations, but you warped them (with your own words as extras) to fit your argument.

Ha, I'm shocked! You actually took up my challenge to you! Not only are you now claiming scepticism on the basis of my ability to change alter the definitions I provided from the original sources but are now claiming that I did [ “you warped them (with your own words as extras) to fit your argument”]. You have now crossed over from being merely a sceptic to putting forward a assertion. This means (as with the thesis that “Communism does not work”) you bear the burden of proof without which we can discard your claims as mere slander.

Again, that's not what I said.

I didn't claim you did. I was trying to ask the difference between the two statements.

You implicitly agree with this assertion then. Again you are trying to veil your lack of rebuttal with semantics. Whether you agree implicitly or explicitly is in this context regardless. You believe that it works in theory (and I'm guessing in practice) therefore you must provide valuable evidence to suggest so.

Let me state quite clearly. I do not fully understand the division between practice and theory. Marxists are not utopian socialists who dream up alternate working, function worlds in the realm of “theory”. What I do believe is that Marxist theory is (largely) correct and valuable (something very different from saying “Communism works in theory”).

The fact that I agree implicitly with the statement “Communism works in practice” is merely a result of my rejection of the statement “Communism does not work in practice”. It is because of this that an implicit agreement with the statement “Communism works in practice” does not carry a burden of proof.

The “semantics” do matter!

If they haven't worked hitherto and they will work hypothetically or in the future, then you are arguing for communism's workability in THEORY.

No that's not true. I do not claim that “communism works in theory”; I am a materialist, a scientific socialist.

Therefore according to an earlier post of yours, you are a Marxist "not worth his weight" do not come back and say "I implicitly claim that it works in theory, but never explicitly said so" because the two are the same really.

Let's look at what I wrote again, shall we:

Advocates of communism always fall back on the weak argument that communism works in THEORY

No Marxist worth his weight would ever do such a thing.

As a “Marxist worth his weight” I have not, am not and will not claim that “Communism works in theory [or practice]”. If I am in implicit agreement with these statements it is only because I am taking the negative (not inverse) position with reference to the assertion “Communism does not work in theory [or practice]”.

And yes to generalise from experience, is indeed correct. It suggests communism's inherent unworkability to an unequivocal extent. "Apples fall towards the earth, if you drop them from a tree" that is simply true from experience and nothing else, as is the statement that "communism does not work in practice"

Extreme scepticism is indeed impractical in the real world (despite being arguably more logically valid).

The difference between the generalisation “ Apples fall towards the earth, if you drop them from a tree” and “ communism does not work in practice” is two fold.

Firstly the former example is backed by hard physics. The latter is backed merely by vague and contentious references to psychology, (bourgeois) economic theory, (bourgeois) sociology etc.

Secondly, the former is more acceptable as evidence because it has proved the claim “beyond any reasonable doubt” (albeit a vague notion) (ie. The consistent observations of millennia). The latter however has not been proved “beyond any reasonable doubt” (ie. Only the observations of the past 150 years)

OK so you don't believe god exists, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AT HAND (There we have something in common) and I don't believe communism works BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AT HAND.

There is no problem with this. However, if you go beyond this and claim that “God does not exist” and “Communism does not work” you bear the burden of proof for your assertion. Being a atheist is different from being an anti-theist, just as being a non-Marxist is different from being an anti-Marxist.

Really there's little difference between saying that and "god doesn't exist" and "communism doesn't work" respectively.

Correct, they both bear the burden of proof for their respective claims.

You may not say god does not exist, but you may as well. I mean when you say leprechauns don't exist you should theoretically say it implicitly and be an implicit leprechaun atheist. But that's ridiculous, I'm sure you'll agree.

In the “grand scheme of things”, there is no difference between being a weak or strong atheist (according to the theist, you're going to hell anyway, right?), however there is a difference in correctness of the various positions, even if it is only semantic.

On the question of the existence of leprechaun, again the only logical position to take would be “I do not believe in the existence of leprechauns as I have no evidence to compel me to do otherwise”. Being an explicit leprechaun “atheist” is just as illogical as being an explicit atheist.

But don't you see, the second argument is valid. We KNOW the magic of Harry Potter is only ever going to work in fiction, without conducting experiments. I mean, does one need to stand in a field with a wand pointed at somebody, chanting crucio for a million years without it working, before we accept that it will never work in practice? No. There are some arguments that don't need defending, and they are arguments based on expereience and common sense.

Firstly, isn't “stand[ing] in a field with a wand pointed at somebody, chanting crucio for a million years”, conducting an experiment? How could we possibly determine the validity of the claim without experiment!?

Secondly, once again this is implicit reasoning and eschewing extreme scepticism in the sake of practicality.

Thirdly, all arguments/assertions/claims need defending, even if they are seemingly rediculous.

Finally, common sense is a relativistic and extremely hazy notion and can not be used for the purpose of defending an assertion.

By saying "God does not exist" you claim that I must prove his impossibility. That is false. Claiming God does not exist requires a previous assertion or belief in his existence. Without a belief in God in the first place, nobody would be in the position to say he doesn't exist.

Oh, and I suppose to be a “Leprechaun atheist” “requires a previous assertion or belief in [their] existence”?

Secondly, and more importantly, the previous assertion of god's existence does not justify you making the inverse claim.

I don't believe in God, because there isn't any evidence to suggest his presence, not because I can "disprove" him.

I too, however, there is a difference between holding an absence of belief and a belief in absence. One bears a burden of proof and the other is merely a negative with no burden to bear.

Similarly I don't believe communism works in practice, because there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with this statement.

"Communism doesn't work" requires the previous belief that it does work, and as such it is the rebuttal.

To repeat myself:

Firstly, the existence of a previous affirmative belief does not justify your not providing evidence in support of your negative assertion.

Secondly, the assertion that “Communism doesn't work” is not a rebuttal (the negative) of the claim “Communism works”, rather it is it's inverse.

If you knew, why did you ask? I'll tell you, because you have nothing left to argue about.

Did you even read what I was responding to? I was trying to be sarcastic. Just for your own benefit I will re-post the dialouge:

Worked means worked

Are you serious!? I did not know that. Just as well I asked isn't it...

Ofcourse the USSR worked, I forgot about that! Sorry I just lost the argument, how could I forget the USSR?!

Who needs argument when we have “common sense” (popular opinion) to rely on...

The context I used it in did not suggest a need for political definition. I used it as a suffix to suggest a generalised nation or place, you know that. You're just clutching at straws and trying to deflect my arguments.

Draw from it what you want. I know my intent; to bring to the fore your own ignorance on the subject (considering the fact that the utopian socialists could not possibly have established a “successful state” because the establishment of a 'state' was never their aim)

Fascist Cambodia

Calling Cambodia “fascist” is a complete misuse of the term. (Again, this is not apologia for the Khmer Rouge, I find their politics as detestable as you do)

You are the one who misattributed these characteristics to Communist political theory. You made the mistake here. Don't try to shake it off or shout it down with your bleating.

Which is why I'm saying that arguing for it in theory is even more illogical, because in practice the theoretical isn't even realistic.

May I point out to those who are reading these posts, that at least I have had the decency to rebutt Zeitgesit's arguments in their entirity. Zeitgeist's last post highlighted his propensity to pick and choose portions of my argument and quote only them. My arguments were taken out of context, and often the only reason he was able to argue them is because they were denied their original chaperones. Every argument I have challenged of his, I have challenged in its entirity and I have included the entire quote in my post. His debating tactics have degenerated from weak to dirty.

I have actually felt I have quoted you many times unnecessarily only the repeat what has already been said. I have quoted what I feel needs a response. Any part of your post which I believe has been rendered superfluous by my own post or those of others before or after I have skipped over. I do not have the time or energy to respond to that which is unnecessary and have hence tried to minimise it. The accusation of dirty tactics is unnecessary and untrue slander.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Everything is wrong with it. I don't limit your ability to express yourself even if i think marxism/socialism is a delusional cult. You are free to discuss what you think. I won't stop you

One size fits all or how the socialist system is always ultimately about programming people and social engineering. You can deny those actions of followers of Marxist ideology until the cows come home, but they ALL desire to enslave society with a Marxist mandate.

Not only have you not answered the question (which I only asked in passing and as an attempt to challenge "common sense" assumptions), you ran off on pointless tangent for which you supplied no evidence what so ever.

I will summarise Marxist Dogma/Ideology

#1. Economic class is the most important feature of society. (WRONG)

#2. All classes are defined as their relationship to means of production (WRONG)

#3. In capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production (WRONG), the proletariat their labour. Peasants are stuck in rural idiocy (WRONG)

#4. All History is the history of class struggle (WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG) this is known as historical materialism

#5. The state is the means whereby the ruling class forcibly maintains its rule over the other classes. (WRONG)

#6 Early man hunter/gatherer was communist (WRONG) All barbarism was due to the rule of chiefs - Good Society in history was communist (BUUUULLLLSHIIIT) All bad society in history can be blamed on not being communist (BULLSHHHHIIIIT)

#7 Struggles in history are mostly class struggles (BULLLSHHITTT)

#8 New classes gain power by struggle. (BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT) Revolution is necessarily violent because the ruling class does not want to give up power. (FAIR STATEMENT)

#9 Capitalism creates the proletariat who have nothing to sell but their labor by bankrupting the artisan classes and the petty bourgeoisie and driving them into the proletariat. (OH I'm so FUCKING SURE the Proletariat have bankrupted me as a musician...I think my eyes fell out of my socket

#10 Under capitalism the progressive class is the proletariat which is destined to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, which will eventually evolve into communism.) (this point is a delusional and sycophantic wet dream! )

#11 Historical materialism is the marxist methodology for interpreting history ( That is, find something and somehow give Marxism kudos via it. Not a real history methodology at all but rather a pathetic rhetorical device employed by Marx to lead the gullible and uneducated and generally lame )

#12 The main feature of socialism is public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange ( Government owns everything, individuals and self organising groups have no power)

What a fucking joke, this has not substance at all. All you have done is copy and pasted a list of characteristics of "Marxist Dogma" and typed next to them "WRONG" and "BUUUULLLLSHIIIT" etc. without any explanation as to why the respective passages are "WRONG" or "BUUUULLLLSHIIIT".

Either piece together a descent argument to back up each of your claims, or stop posting.

Marx: Turning humans into machines since 1867!

What about that passage in any way implies the turning of men into machines?

As you can see Marxist ideology/stupidity is a one size fits all, black or white dogma. IT FUCKING FAILS ON MANY LEVELS.

Sorry but the thing "Fucking fail[ing]" here is your "argument".

Step away from the keyboard, mature a bit, read a book and come back when you have something worth posting.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Re: 回复: Re: "Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity"

to be absolutely clear, my argument is that stalin was not a follower of marxism and marxist-leninism, but only saw its merits only through its potential to yield political power.

I would agree that Stalin's USSR was not in anyway socialist or transitional but merely state-capitalist. Your points below regarding Stalin's abandonment of basic socialist principles is of course undeniable and his decisions of policy where most certainly ones to perpetuate his own rule and the rule of Russian capitalist class in the form of the party bureaucracy. Despite all this I think that to claim that Stalin was a "bad-egg" from the start (ie. his early career in the Bolshevik party pre-revolution) concerned only with securing power and establishing a totalitarian dictatorship is off base (not that I'm sure that this is what you are claiming, but this was the sort of message I got).

 

[zstar]

Surely what you mean is the 'freedom' to choose my lord and master and to serve under him as profit = theft!

Then don't work and live off welfare.


Happy now?

 

[44Ronin]

What about that passage in any way implies the turning of men into machines?

The bold part, in context. Living to work should be your pleasure and end function.

What a fucking joke

Ok, you'll get a blow by blow analysis after I go to my next tutorial.

 

[cheezles]

ok, lets try and get some coherent arguement happening.

auerbach makes a point, and theres no point in arguing over who holds the burden of proof.

This is a challenge to anyone who can argue on behalf of Marxism/Communism.
---
Quote: auerbach
It ultimately comes down to this: does communism work in practice? The burden of proof rests with you to provide examples of such, and if you can't see that then unfortunately this debate will never get anywhere. You think it works in practice, I don't. The evidence is explicit on my behalf: it never has. The burden of proof now rests with you, to provide an example suggesting otherwise.
---

Of course its VERY hard to prove the success of Communism.
The best I can do (and mind you, this is vague) is the success of small scale communes of 5+ famliies in Kazikistan being successful.

Apart from that, I offer to you the idea of small towns in medieval England working with little support from outside. They survived and were able to support their population.
What about indigenous tribes, including aboriginal tribes, african primitive tribes? I'm sure they can be considered a crude, small scale form of Communism.

My point here, is that these 'successful' (debatable, but they didn't die out, so i claim them as being successful) communes survive as a result of friendship/trust/brotherhood etc, some form of trust between the members.

It seems to me that the idea of Communism and Marxism is dependant on a certain level of trust. After all, if what you produced in society was going to someone you didnt trust, would u expect to get anything back?

With Stalin, and his entire reign, he did not earn the trust of the peasants, rather depending on the working classes in the cities, instead using force to get his regime to work. Collectivisation wasnt popular amongst the peasants. Innovation and creativity in work was suppressed, wage differentials were created dependant on hard you worked, to convince the workers to work.

He had no other choice but to FORCE people to work through his terror. Therefore i say he did NOT implement Marxism in its true form (ie how it was intended to be).

Now this is one of two of my questions (and i ask them in practicality, not theory)

1. If communism works on the idea that you are working for the people, and the people are working for you, and your work extra work will be spread amongst the people, then what incentive do you have to work?

Altruism aside, major social upheavals generally lead to people wanting them to protect their own wellbeing ahead of other's wellbeing. How can you convince someone to work without force? What incentive do they have to work? eg what motivation do people have to study for 11 years to become a doctor have, if they are going to be given the same food/goods/shelter as someone working as an accountant?

2. How can a Communist society actually be implemented?

If you consider Stalin/Lenin, both attempted to institute a form of Communism, based (if somtimes loosely) on Marxist ideology.

The idea of Communism sounds good. Goods for everyone, everything is shared, no shortage of foods, equal human rights.
But at the moment, that's all it is. Just a vision.

Its how to successfully achieve a socialist state that causes the most trouble. Its hard to get people to work for others on the basis that they are (supposedly) working for you.

The USSR tried to implement Communism through terror, which in the long run is no way to earn someones trust, or create a situation which is conducive to a Commune-style society. Instead they ended up with another ruling party, another bourgoise class, and an exploitation of basic human rights.

So can anyone answer this question? what CAN you do to actually implement a society which will possess the qualities of a Marxist state?

 

[sam04u]

You think it works in practice, I don't. The evidence is explicit on my behalf: it never has. The burden of proof now rests with you, to provide an example suggesting otherwise.

You need to read the argument of the other particpants in a debate, before making your points.
He never said either way whether it does or does not work in practice. Rather he argued that just because "it never has" that does not mean "it never will".

The problem then with your argument that "it does not work in practice" is that it implies it can not work in practice, which is something you can not possible - because in every instance of a government resembling a Marxist one, there is criticism one way or another as to how it was executed improperly. I think even you could concede that point. The only way in which you can satisfy your argument that it can not work, is for it to have been tested fully, in every which way. Once that has been achieved, then there would be nobody left even arguing the case for the ideology, as it would be proven itself to have failed in every way.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

The bold part, in context. Living to work should be your pleasure and end function.

The statement does not imply that "Living to work should be your pleasure and end function". Rather, it is trying to say that in a hypothetical communist society labour will lose it's alienating and dehumanising character, that is it will become an activity freely engaged in for the fulfilment and benefit of man in accordance with his physical and intellectual capacities.

In fact the whole point of the statement was not an expression of Marx's desire to turn man into machine, but rather his desire to liberate man from the position of a machine he assumes under capitalism as a result of division of labour and the compulsive nature of work.

On a final note, even if we assume Marx was expressing a desire to turn man into machine (which he was not, as explained above), what is so repulsive about doing so? If you call it mechanical to desire and be fulfilled by one's labour, I will be the first to demand my turning into a machine!

Ok, you'll get a blow by blow analysis after I go to my next tutorial.

I look forward to it as a nice change of pace.

auerbach makes a point, and theres no point in arguing over who holds the burden of proof.

In so far as someone making the claim that "Communism does not work in practice" thinks it acceptable to provide no proof in favour of his assertion, debating the burden of proof is necessary.

This is a challenge to anyone who can argue on behalf of Marxism/Communism.
---
Quote: auerbach
It ultimately comes down to this: does communism work in practice? The burden of proof rests with you to provide examples of such, and if you can't see that then unfortunately this debate will never get anywhere. You think it works in practice, I don't. The evidence is explicit on my behalf: it never has. The burden of proof now rests with you, to provide an example suggesting otherwise.

This "challenge" does not apply to me as I am not arguing that "Communism works in practice". Despite not arguing this I am still a Marxist.

The best I can do (and mind you, this is vague) is the success of small scale communes of 5+ famliies in Kazikistan being successful.

Apart from that, I offer to you the idea of small towns in medieval England working with little support from outside. They survived and were able to support their population.
What about indigenous tribes, including aboriginal tribes, african primitive tribes? I'm sure they can be considered a crude, small scale form of Communism.

These are actually more similar to what Marx called "primitive communism", that is, communal based societies which exhibited no class structure, no state, no private property on the basis of scarcity and primitive development of the productive forces.

My point here, is that these 'successful' (debatable, but they didn't die out, so i claim them as being successful) communes survive as a result of friendship/trust/brotherhood etc, some form of trust between the members.

I think this is a very superficial analysis. Modes of production are not dependant on the psychology of the beings who occupy them. Primitive communism has it's basis in a severe scarcity in the articles of consumption following from a primitive stage in the development of the productive forces. Any "Primitive communist" type societies in the form of rural communes is to a large degree an anomaly subsumed within the dominant mode of production of society as a whole, something which may be put down to "friendship/trust/brotherhood" (ie. hippie communes) or direct material benefit (ie. the Russian Peasant Commune).

It seems to me that the idea of Communism and Marxism is dependant on a certain level of trust.

I would diagree. Rather it is dependant on a certain development of the means of production, a development already provided to use by capitalism itself.

With Stalin, and his entire reign, he did not earn the trust of the peasants, rather depending on the working classes in the cities

The problem Stalin faced was more with the kulaks (rich, land owning peasants) than the peasant body as a whole. Despite my opinion of Stalin and the USSR at the time, conflict with small peasants (essentially petit-bougeois) and large land owning peasntry (essentially a rural bourgeoisie/landowning class) is inevitavble following a working class revolution. Only the proletariat can be the bearer of communism, the peasant still tied to his land has not only his chains to loose.

Innovation and creativity in work was suppressed, wage differentials were created dependant on hard you worked, to convince the workers to work.

Empiracle evidence as to the capitalistic nature of the USSR at the time.

1. If communism works on the idea that you are working for the people, and the people are working for you, and your work extra work will be spread amongst the people, then what incentive do you have to work?

The incentive is two-fold;

Firstly, we are assuming that labour has lost it's alienating and dehumanising nature, becoming for men an activity engaged in not only for it's material benefits but for it's intrinsic benefits (ie. The fulfilment of his physical and intellectual capacities)

Secondly, generally speaking, social labour is more productive than individual labour, that is to say, the total social product is more than merely the sum of what each individual's product. The individual will be compelled to labour socially and in accordance with the needs of society so as to better his own standards of living. An example given earlier in this thread, why would a man choose to divorce himself from society, supporting himself and his family only by their own labour? How in such a situation could they expect to live beyond a primitive subsistence standard?

Altruism aside, major social upheavals generally lead to people wanting them to protect their own wellbeing ahead of other's wellbeing.

On what basis do you make this claim? Social upheavals are the climax of the class struggle (the conflict of interests between social classes) where one side scores a definitive victory over the over in defence of their particular class interests. Social upheaval as a collective action, a mass movement has collective motives, that is, those of the victorious class.

How can you convince someone to work without force? What incentive do they have to work? eg what motivation do people have to study for 11 years to become a doctor have, if they are going to be given the same food/goods/shelter as someone working as an accountant?

Their can be said to be two incentives. Firstly there is personal interest and preference. For example I may want to be a doctor because of my love of medicine as a academic discipline and have a desire to help others. I may want to be a construction worker because I could not stand doing an office job, instead I prefer to be outdoors and doing physical activity.


Secondly, motivation comes from the material world itself. If people are sick are there is a scarcity of trained medical professionals, do you think society will just decay or do you think people will act in a collective and rational manner in order to overcome the challenge.

2. How can a Communist society actually be implemented?

That is a very big an very vague question. Without elaboration of the question on your part I can not give a good answer.

The idea of Communism sounds good. Goods for everyone, everything is shared, no shortage of foods, equal human rights.
But at the moment, that's all it is. Just a vision.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself! Communism is not a vision, it is not an alternative reality that we try an implement. Communism is the social movement of the working class toward it's liberation from the shackles of wage-labour. Please people, read my sig!

 

[green97]

i think its time for US all to regress and live in caves once more where our lives were simple and complex ideologies mean nothing in the face of survival.

Alternatively, we can support peace movements and rock on to music !!!

 

[moll.]

i think its time for US all to regress and live in caves once more where our lives were simple and complex ideologies mean nothing in the face of survival.

Alternatively, we can support peace movements and rock on to music !!!

Read about Proudhon.
He's a champ.

EDIT: Here's an extract of his ideas:

He adopted the term mutualism for his brand of anarchism, which involved control of the means of production by the workers. In his vision, self-employed artisans, peasants, and cooperatives would trade their products on the market. For Proudhon, factories and other large workplaces would be run by "labor associations" operating on directly democratic principles. The state would be abolished; instead, society would be organized by a federation of "free communes" (a commune is a local municipality in French).

To me that reads as a feudal village or fiefdom.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

Read about Proudhon.

Then read Marx's critique (The Poverty of Philosophy) as find out as to why he is a redundant fool

 

[moll.]

Then read Marx's critique (The Poverty of Philosophy) as find out as to why he is a redundant fool

According to Marx, that is.
And i wasn't really supporting his ideas, just pointing out that he wanted feudalistic fiefdoms, which would be similar to going back and living in caves.

 

[44Ronin]

Ok

I will summarise Marxist Dogma/Ideology

#1. Economic class is the most important feature of society.

This point of Marxism is probably the saddest assumption that one can come towards. Right here you have admission that Marxism is a materialistic cult that believes economics trumps everything in society. Need I say more?

#2. All classes are defined as their relationship to means of production

All of Marx's classes are defined as their relationship to means of production. Not the actual classes as themselves. This invented concept is false. Classes are defined by their role and contribution towards society and in return (or lack thereof) their treatment. Marx seems to forget that people descend classes for other reasons than 'means of production'.



#3. In capitalism, the capitalists own the means of production the proletariat their labour. Peasants are stuck in rural idiocy

In capitalism, the onus is on the individual to enterprise. In capitalism more people have individual ownership than in a socialist model. In a socialist system people who are not faithful to the system or party are cut short of their potential. In democratic capitalism, people are at liberty to reach their potential (they are also subject to the chaos inherent in the system) and own the means of production. Under the communist model the proletariat will never enterprise to own the means of production. Instead they will be brainwashed into beleiving that everyone owns it, when in reality it's the restrictive and tyrannical single parties that are always signature to all marxist systems that own everything. Go figure.

Farmers of the developed world are not stuck in rural 'idiocy'. Explain that one Marx. I'll explain it - it's called a short sighted and ignorant theory that should of stayed in the 19th century where it belongs.


#4. All History is the history of class struggle, this is known as historical materialism

This is Karl Marx's attempt at re-writing history to support his dogma. An actual plausible method of History is apolitical. Likewise the idea that every subject in history is due to class struggle is just downright stupid.


#5. The state is the means whereby the ruling class forcibly maintains its rule over the other classes.

So I guess the communist state is the epitome of this ideal? Where it slaughters it's own subjects to ensure it's generally harsh and unwanted rule? So that explains why these systems require the removal of entire classes? So you can train the young men to be young believers? Sounds like a form of facism to me.


If you ask me it's a piss poor attitude to government.




#6 Early man hunter/gatherer was communist All barbarism was due to the rule of chiefs - Good Society in history was communist All bad society in history can be blamed on not being communist.

I don't even need to tell you how wrong this is. It's fabricated bullshit. Pure and simple. If it is not, I'm waiting for the evidence. I'm also waiting for the evidence that human dynamics from a hunter gather society can directly apply to a settlement society. I won't be holding my breath.



#7 Struggles in history are mostly class struggles

No most struggles are not mostly class struggles. There's no evidence to back that up. (because it's fabricated nonsense)

#8 New classes gain power by struggle.

No. Many middle classes in history came about by trade. Lower classes come about as a result consequence, and mostly not from being placed there (tin foil hat theory). In origin, many upper classes gained their place by being the best. Aristocracy literally means rule by the best of. Of course many of these became decadent instead of virtuitous.

#9 Capitalism creates the proletariat who have nothing to sell but their labor by bankrupting the artisan classes and the petty bourgeoisie and driving them into the proletariat.

This is pretty much industrophobia on the part of Marx. Ironically, the bulk of the socialist/communist governments he inspired were the epitome of production quotas. The petty bourgeoisie and artisans are still around. So I mean is Marx's promise like the return of jesus? That is, it's never actually going to come.

#10 Under capitalism the progressive class is the proletariat which is destined to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, which will eventually evolve into communism.) (this point is a delusional and sycophantic wet dream! )

Marx predicted this would happen in the first world countries FIRST, yet no developed nation has yet turned to Communism/Socialism. Ironically it happened in poor countries first. Marx got it wrong.This is because in a society it is only extreme times that lead to popular support to extreme ideologies.

#11 Historical materialism is the marxist methodology for interpreting history

That is, find something and somehow give Marxism kudos via it. Not a real history methodology at all but rather a pathetic rhetorical device employed by Marx to lead the gullible and uneducated and generally lame


#12 The main feature of socialism is public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

And since the party owns public ownership, by default they own everything.