any comrades?

Remove all ads!

@ joacqin

I believe you are misrepresenting Karl Marx. To say Marx was not a communist but rather a socialist is blatantly false as it was Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels whom wrote the landmark historical document "Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848"...AKA the Communist Manifesto.

Actually, this is what Marx had to say about socialist...

"The Socialist bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie."
--Karl Marx, "The Communist Manifesto"

In other words, socialism maintains the existing ruling middle class while taking the edge off of living as the dependant and subordinate lower class. Socialism is capitalism, but capitalism that is less engendering of a violent revolution.
Marx did not believe in capitalism, but rather the abolition of capital and its subsequent and necessary exploitation of those with none by those with plenty.

I must say I have put some thought into the possibility of living in a communist society. My father has his own business. He is by every definition a proud and unapologetic member of the bourgeoisie. His employees are wage-earning laborers; all young men whom will never be able to compete with their bourgeois boss because they do not make enough to put capital away and save for the day in which they could run their own business. They will never have the reins on the means of production and hence, they are dependent on my father's whims and wills, although I must say my father is a fair man and in my opinion far too lenient as he is incapable of firing even the most deserving of drunks.

How did my father leave the proletariat and become a member of the bourgeoisie? He worked very hard and married a woman whom would work full-time and then donate her wages to my father's upstart business. My father also had a great stroke of luck. A few years after his business first began the government passed laws requiring his services (he is in the fire-protection business). My parents attribute their success to donations at church and praying, although I would say luck and hard work had more to do with it. Either way, the industry has now been made and his workers will not have the opportunity he did, at least in the fire-protection business.

When business is slow my father has the guys do things like...and I am serious, mow the lawn (we own acres), paint the house, landscaping, chop firewood...any number of tasks. There is two sides to this...on one hand, it is nicer to pay them the same wage to do yardwork ($13/hour) than it is to lay them off...on the other, it is obvious exploitation of the wage-earning proletariat and I feel ashamed when I am around them. My family, particulary my father, are almost feudal lords in this small Pennsylvanian town, albeit only over a handful of guys.

That is capitalism. My father owns the means of production and hence, those dependent on it for a means of living are subordinates.

But could there be any other way? Is there any society on this Earth that does not depend upon exploitation? Karl Marx believed the entirety of human history is a long tale of the struggle between the exploited and exploiting. Karl Marx was very accurate in describing the problem, however his solutions have been almost entirely unworkable. A communist government subliming into the will of the proletariat? Has never happened...in fact the opposite has occured by large measure. I don't think the exploitation is ever going to stop. What we must do is ensure that the exploitation is done respectfully. The bourgeoisie must always remember that if the proletariat organized a revolution, they would win. Their power must be respected, but for society to exist, their class must be maintained.

 

Well what countrys aren't capitilist? Cuba? That's it, and Cuba is easily the best 3rd world country!

About petty theft, capitilism forces people into stealing because they are forced into a state of want and greed by capitilist society!

Communism is stateless society run by the mantra "Each to his ability, each to his need" where everyone is equal.

USSR was a degenerated workers state by the time Stalin seized power and abused his power for his own gains, I think everyone abusing Communism should read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto. Also read Trotsky's Bolshevishm and Stalinism.

 

So teachers teach and Gandhi's gandh(and get killed) to fulfill a personal desire, (help people), they are greedy in helping people, just as people are greedy in making money.

But if greed is not something human, then where did it come from? And don't come with anything metaphysical, since that is opium for the soul.. oh wow, another thing to fulfill a desire!


Glad to be back people!

 

First, Engels was a capitalist leech draining the working class (he was a factory owner with not much reputation for lenience and humanity). Marx was a capitalist leech draining on Engels's money.

And Lenin was a lawyer. BTW, Fidel is a lawyer, too. Real working class, aren't they?

Che's full name was Ernesto Guevara de la Serna. Does it sound like a working class name?

As for USSR, they were planning to "achieve socialism" and, once socialism is achieved, to "achieve communism". They claimed they had achieved socialism fully, but were still not done achieving communism. No country of the Soviet block included "communist" in its name. Only "people's" or "socialist". The one and only political party (except the puppet opposition, of course) was called Communist party, though. Or, more formally, "Workers' Party".

Communism in the true sense is far from that. It's a kind of anarchy: no government, no local authorities, nothing like that. No democratic mechanisms of voting, either. Everything common and no private property. Everyone working (physically).

Communis - comon (Latin), commun - common (French) and so on. Hence the name.

Socialism is, in brief, "from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs". In Soviet block countries it basically meant sucking whatever they could from you and giving you what they decided you needed.

I cherish deep and sincere hate for anything marginally related to the reds. I don't even wear red. But I'm quite a bit on the left side in certain matters.

In a movie I watched, one Roman senator said to another "do not try to be of the people, be *for* the people". I'm somewhere close to that.

This means I don't want to be ruled by people from the crowd. Thank you very much. I don't care who they are, how much they have, what's their family and so on. But I want them to know their field, know how to behave and know how to speak proper language. Average intellect is not enough, either. Well, you get much the same in democracy, but there's at least some selection. The most hopeless ones won't get voted in. Well, not always (pass my love to Dubya). But still.

Don't get me wrong, I'm really sick of those people that you don't know if they are politicians or if they're businessmen. You only know one: they rule the country and they get twice richer with every term of office. And they always get an office no matter how hopeless they are. If no one will elect them anymore, someone will still nominate them.

They already start to have at least some political office all the time. And to tie business with politics inseparably. And to intermarry. Heck, they even inherit political ties.

How is that better than feudalism? Yeah, people say I would restore feudalism if I were given the chance. Considering the current situation, that supposition is not totally unbased...

It's probably because I made a class-heavy comment when someone started talking about "political elite" as a valid group having valid interests deserving protection and actually having some sort of right to political power (in Democracy!). I called them upstarts collectively, or something. And then went that politically incorrect comment that got me the label of feudal reactionist

I just want the goverment to be competent people and not just good pals of the PM, who in turn should not be just the most popular oldboy in the local business club.

Communism gives you no choice. But in democracy someone decides MP candidates already for you, so what's the deal? You can choose some candidate, but you have no say as to who's going to candidate in the first place.

Unfortunately, democracy in the modern shape (ie all adult citizens voting and not just male slave owners) won't work without political parties, thieves and incompetent goons as they are for the biggest part.

But stay away from me with that sickle and hammer or I'll put a sword down your throat.

As one Polish politican said, "white is white and red is wicked".

 

Those teachers wouldn't be teaching if they wouldn't get paid, don't you think for one minute that they do it out of the kindness of their hearts, or solely to pass on their knowledge. I've seen one teacherstrike over a raise in payment too many to fall for such nonsense.

 

Chevy.....Where on earth to you get off saying such a thing? Male slave owners? Thieves and incompetent goons? A bit of an overgeneralization I'd say and worded in such a way to be quite derogatory.... as if other political systems are any better. Leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

[ May 21, 2004, 03:32: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

Democracy didn't actually start in the US, surprising as it may be. It is a very old institution dating back to times immemorial. However, at the beginning the only people that could vote were male slave owners. Why?

Because slaves had no vote. Neither did females. The society consisted, basically, of slaves and slave owners.

Of course, now there are no slaves and females can vote, but it wasn't so obvious in, for example, the democracy of Athens in ancient Greece.

It contains no contradiction with the term democracy. Democracy is demokratia, the rule of the demos, people. It only matters that whoever is concerned part of the demos votes. Therefore, if the demos consists of free citizens of male gender and legal age, and only 10% inhabitants are citizens, it's still democracy. Even if 2% people have voting rights and a fraction of a percent bothers making use of their voting rights.

I suppose history is disgusting and insulting for some people. But it is typical of my rhetoric.

You would probably also like to hear more about incompetent goons and thieves. Sure, why not. Goons are politicians who can't have a civil discussion. Whether a debate in the media or one in a country's parliament. They will shout, scream, stamp and whistle. They will call people names, let anger replace their brains and flame people. At best they will plot to show the opposition as criminal offenders or incompetent retards (choose either, sometimes both).

Incompetent? They always screw something up and put the little people in gaol for that. Pentagon gives orders, NCOs go to prison for carrying them. For instance.

Thieves? There's always at least one major affair serving as press fodder. No matter which party, there are always problems with election campaign funding, officials' salaries, as well as standard subventions and subsides mess that only sees daylight if someone fails to hide it from the public. Then, you also get auctions that the right people win, mysteriously...

It's public money. And it comes from either taxes or income generated by state property, which is basically joint property of all citizens.

Get a typical parliament. What is the only initiative on which all parties agree? Raising the salaries of MPs.

I suppose truth is insulting and disgusting. Typical for my rhetoric as well. And tiring. Can't help it. Can't change the truth no matter how hard I try. I pray every morning and evening they stop stealing and screwing things up, but they won't stop. What more can I do?

Guess I'll wait till you're able to formulate a reply.

[ May 21, 2004, 00:32: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Not all of us are so egocentric as to think that Chevalier. But thanks for the clarification on your slavery comment.

Edit -- It's your version of truth Chev, that's all. And, frankly, my response wouldn't be fit for print here, so I'll refrain.

*Spelly bites her tongue doubly hard*

[ May 21, 2004, 00:43: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

Technically, you can have political parties without democracy. In a republic, for instance, with only limited influence of voting. However, they work in a little bit different way if they don't compete for electoral support but, let's say, armed support of citizens.

Democracy isn't a disaster. But it's surely not flawless, either. And the flaws are grand. In today's countries, though, democracy is greatly limited. Someone always decides the constituencies and candidates. And it's not the citizens-electors.

Examples of misconduct and display of poor manners typically associated with political parties in democracy I gave above. If it gives you any consolation, it's not the fault of democracy itself. It's the parties, or rather the people who form them. Of course, some people are decent there, but it's not like only a select few in a given party know about affairs taking place, the greater abuse. Most of party members are involved in lesser abused, sometimes even unwittingly, but culpably nonetheless. This includes numerous abuse of public property in private interest or for private gain. Property, or even just information. There aren't many people who would have never abused their authority anyhow. As I mentioned, they typically have troubles making a precise distinction between politics and business. A great part commit deliberate fraud, and many are involved in lesser abuse that is fraudulent nonetheless. Add the two groups together and the majority of politicians have something to do with deliberate fraud, even if they don't really consider it fraud or just a "little" one.

The problem with democracy is that the group is way larger than in systems where you don't have elections. Also, where you have no elections you have no parties and therefore you don't need all their structures serving the purpose of promotion and attracting more voters.

 

Well, yes, if you get your ideas of American History from watching "Gone with the Wind."
But the reality is something very different. While it is true that most of the southern colonies may have fit this discription, there were states in New England that had outlawed slavery.

As an example, John Adams, second President of the US never owned slaves. As one of the Founders, with impeccable revolutionary credentials, he hardly fits your description. And there were strong anti-slavery movements in the Middle Atlantic States also, particularly PA, with it's strong Quaker background.

This reminds me of the kind of thinking and rhetoric that cost the liberals and progressives the "Founders" argument in American politics. During the Fifties it was fashionable for liberals to denouce the Founders (very unfairly) for this very thing. Unforunately, the conservatives were only to glad to take up the "Founders Cause" in their political arguments. That is one of the reasons why they are often (at times incorrectly) used as touchstones in conservative arguments today. Although all Americans share the great heritage of their accomplishments.

 

Chandos, but I specifically made it clear that "democracy didn't start in the US, surprising as it may be". Neither is slavery US-only. When someone speaks about the beginnings of democracy or ancient democracy, he doesn't speak of the early development of the United States, but of democracy in classical Greece and, to some extent, Rome (republic with certain democratic institutions), Germanic tribes, or even so called primitive democracy or war democracy (Germanic tribes, Slavic tribes). It is important to realise that the use of the word "democracy" doesn't automatically refer you to the US political history. While I recognise the role of the US in the development of modern democracy, I must stress that this role is not exclusive, nor even leading. The word "society" refer you to the US, either. Basically, every community of people is a society if a national one, or a local one, so when you hear it used in American TV it refers to the US society by default, but if used outside it may refer to a different society. The same goes for the word "public".

Also, I assure you my historical education extends quite a bit beyond watching movies. PM me for credentials if interested.

Back to the subject, though. In all those cultures, according to Marx and as a matter of gross simplification, the basic division was between slaves and freemen and within freemen, between slave owners and those with no slaves. Per Marx, it was the immediate previous stage before feudalism based on land ownership.

Although Marxism generally sucks as a doctrine in its own right, Marx's analysis of capitalism and the roots and development thereof is quite accurate as a rule - even if it's full of gross simplifications and broad generalisations, anyway.

So, in a democracy in the era of slavery-based societies, it was only natural that slaves had no vote if they had no civil rights, being considered items. Their natural human status was recognised, but so long as in slavery, they were considered items in the legal sense as testified by documents. Actually, Romans would call them "instrumenta vocalia" - talking tools.

Though, if we've already brought the US into our discussion, I must say I have the feeling that the US are far less subject to the mess of political parties than European countries. You have two parties that count of which each gets about 40% vote no matter what, and battles the other one for the remaining 20%. In Europe (except the UK), 20% is an impressive score and governments typically require a coalition to form. Another area of great mess potential, by the way.

Of course, the fixed bilateral system of two parties creates its own opportunities for corruption and political abuse in addition to eliminating those known from European-style systems. No system is perfect. Democracy has lots of merit, granted, but it's just a method of government. It's not the pinnacle of human achievement by any means.

[ May 21, 2004, 10:10: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Chev - Not to worry, I don't doubt your very good credentials on historical issues. But different people can disagree on the issues, and irony and sarcasim are the "spices" of argument.

I took your statement in a larger context: one in which democracies in general (including the US) began as a system that resembles something very different - democracy for those of the right gender, race and economic class. That of course is not democracy at all. To say that the Greeks had democracy, or the Romans during the Republic, is really worth arguing. This agrument came with the Revolutionary principles at the founding of America as well.

On the class warfare front, Jefferson himself saw this buried deep in the Anglo past, and as a result of the Norman conquest and the more general advance of feudalism throughout Europe. He had a fanciful and idyllic view of Anglo-Saxon England, where liberty was internalized among peace loving people who were close to the earth. This helps to explain why he commented that if he could choose the best system of government it would be more like that of the American Indians rather than the one which emerged from the Revolution.

On the issue of slavery: During the heat of the Revolution, and while drafting the Declaration he was overtly anti-slavery. In fact, the orginal draft contained the accusation that King George III was to blame for the "great evil of slavery" in the colonies. The Continental Congress quickly removed most of this language from the Declaration, much to Jefferson's irritation. But as he aged, and the nation took shape, he became much more silent on the issue, having some 200 slaves himself. This is one of those "Jeffersonian paradoxs" that plague his scholars.

While the issue of gender was certainly latent in the Revolution and the language of the Decalration, it was hardly addressed by most of the Founding Brothers in any serious way. The John and Abigail Adams partnership had some interesting political dimensions, and even Jefferson was often amazed by her political wit. But Jefferson saw a deep division between the role of men and women in politics. He was greatly distrubed by the "bedroom politics" of Europe, and he often complained of "women meddling" in French politics.

Someone once remarked that if "Jefferson is right, then America is right; if Jefferson is wrong then America is wrong."

[ May 21, 2004, 19:11: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Well, I cannot agree that the Greeks didn't have democracy. They actually invented it and coined the word (it's not a Greek-based scientific term, it's a real word) to call it, so it's not proper to say they didn't really have it.

What is important in "democracy" is that everyone who is considered part of the people votes. As I said, slaves were not considered people but items and women as well as children were not entitled to vote. It's still democracy, even if not in the modern shape that we know today. We have different rules for acquiring citizenship (it's easier for non-natives to get citizenship than it was in ancient Greek city-states), we don't have slaves, and for good or bad we have allowed our females to vote That's why we have a greater percentage of inhabitants voting in the elections.

 

Then you must agree with Spellbound after all that America has a rather unique system, or at the very least, a very enhanced form of democracy, since we have agreed that slaves were not considered "property" nor "items" by a number of the Founders during the crucial year of 1776.

That this marks a significant difference from what had previously been defined as a democracy would indicate that the Founders had at least reconsidered what can be defined as the "democratic principles" on which they founded the American government.

 

I've never seen Communism work well in any society. It seems to be one of those things that just looks good on paper. To me, personally, it doesn't even look good on paper.

 

Comrade Anarcho/Communist Woodwyrm reporting in!

Where's can i sign up for da revolution mon?

As for soviet being communist; no.
Marx claimed that you first have to go through industrialization before anyone would start a revolution that would lead to communism. Russia, in zhe beginning fo the 20th century, was on the verge of becoming industrialised(spelling?) when Lenin et compagnie siezed power and proclaimed the country socialist.

So, no i don't believe for a minute that Soviet was a aspiring communist utopia.