"Communism is the greatest evil unleashed on humanity" (2 Viewers)

[Zeitgeist308]

so tell us about the prelim HSC and how it meshes with communism

Sorry, what do you mean by this? (Why did you quote all that post just for an off-topic one-liner?)

 

[jb_nc]

It all sounds good in theory but like you said:
"You can't. The individual must be free to do away with his labour as he wishes in accordance with the rational planning of the human needs of the community."

In conclusion: In theory communism works, In theory.

worst rebuttal of communism ever

 

[Zeitgeist308]

worst rebuttal of communism ever

*Cough* I asked you a question. Please don't ignore my post.

In conclusion: In theory communism works, In theory.

Huh? Are you trying to make a point here? I don't get it.

 

[Enteebee]

In conclusion, most people's arguments against communism (and free market capitalism) are strawmen.

 

[jb_nc]

In conclusion, most people's arguments against communism (and free market capitalism) are strawmen.

Sounds like you support child molesting as a economic system.

 

[sam04u]

*Cough* I asked you a question. Please don't ignore my post.

Zeitgeist, how fortunate we are that you will never be responsible for running anything larger than a household, if by the time you're old enough to open up a family, male is still the dominant figure in the household.

You have an absolute lack of even fundamental knowledge or of how a society which you would like to exist (I can infer so) a communist state, could exist and at the same time provide for the people neccessities of life, let alone the fine arts and pleasures life has to offer.

No, "communism" doesn't say this at all. The farmer (if we can even speak of the a farmer considering the abolition of the social division of labour) will produce for his immediate physical needs but also for his physical and intellectual "wants".

That is completely contradictory to what the implications of a socialist state should be. If the crop is controlled by the farmer, therefore the cost of the crop is controlled by the farmer, it is thus so that the farmer with a valuable neccessity for life could manipulate the value of the crop, and therefore increase his networth and in doing so be able to satisfy more of his physical and intellectual wants.

By the same token, a person which is incapable of producing any valuable neccessity for life will be forced to lead a meagre existance. What you're implying is Communism = Anarchism.

YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG, in making that implication. Please, never, ever, post again.

There can be no controlling entity which forces the farmer to labour beyond his freewill.

...And how about if the farmer can not labour at all? Should he and the people go without? You have no idea what you're talking about. You stupid idiot.

You're advocating anarchism, not communism. gb2RonPaul

 

[Silver Persian]

I am afraid I do not understand this criticism. Would you care to elaborate?



1. The vagueness that permeates discussion on the nature of communism comes down to that fact that - to paraphrase Marx - we can't dictate the recipes for the cooks of tomorrow. To bring it back to my signature, Communism is not a utopia that must be realised, it is the real movement of the working class against it's current conditions.


2. Of course the empirical reality of the USSR and the other "socialist states" can be dismissed, but only in so far as they represented actual communism or socialism. Their are of course many lessons to be learnt from the mistakes and failings as well as the victories and successes in the history of the workers movement. This we can not ignore, but the argument that communism and Marxism are failed ideologies on the basis that "communist states" where communist and their fall represents the fall of communism can be.



This is not true. Marxism is the theoretical expression of the class struggle, not the inspiration to the proletariat. The proletariat are made to struggle by the objective antagonisms of capitalist relations of production and their place within them. It is through this struggle that the proletariat acquire a "consciousness" as a unified class with unified aims and objectives diametrically opposed to the present social relations. "Class consciousness" must not and can not be brought to the workers as in the Kautskyist-Leninist conception).



Would you please provide evidence in substantiate these claims.

Where you are mistaken is that you forget that the development of "class consciousness" is fundamentally the product of material conditions of capitalism. "Class consciousness" is not and can not be independent of capitalism. A good article to read on this matter is Gilles Dauvé's The Renegade Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin.

1. Your unwillingness to specify what communism will look like makes any argument about how good/bad communism is pointless. You cannot sit back and talk about how good it is unless you are willing to put forward a substantive notion of what communism, in fact, is.

2. Essentialist ontology of labour = prioritsation of labour as the generator of consciousness. To me, while labour may be important, its ahistorical positioning as always the most important feature of subjective development needs to be tempered with a more balanced, contingent approach. In other words, I would say that the importance of labour versus, say, gender, as the chief "social axis" of consciousness development depends upon particular historical conditions, and is not a law of subjectivity.

3. Yes, I agree with you that Marxism is meant to be a theoretical expression of class struggle, but Marx wanted "philosophy to be realised". In other words, he wants the theory to "latch on to" existing social tensions and help to instigate socialist revolution. Unity of theory and practice and all that. If theory and practice do not unite, Marxist theory (while it could possibly be descriptively true) has failed in its revolutionary ambition.

4. I think The German Ideology tends to take a more "realist" approach to communism - seeing it as not the fulfilment of an inevitable historical teleology, but as the contingent outcome of real social action. I haven't got the entire book in front of me so I can't find you any quotes - but this is what my philosophy lecturer tells me.

 

[sam04u]

You cannot apply communism if people do not want to follow communist ways

He's not a communist. He's an anarchist. (The two really are mutually exclusive.)

 

[Silver Persian]

In conclusion, most people's arguments against communism (and free market capitalism) are strawmen.

Mine aren't!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Comrades! Let us work together and not against one another! We can build a new left and create a new world!

 

[zeam]

Comrades! Let us work together and not against one another! We can build a new left and create a new world!

i fucking hope you trolling...if not then get out from keyboard and go and get some sun becase your brain starting to melt from computer radiation...

 

[sthcross.dude]

i fucking hope you trolling...if not then get out from keyboard and go and get some sun becase your brain starting to melt from computer radiation...

Communism has some good points and bad points. It's like anything. I'm not a communist, more a socialist. I favour nationalisation of factors of production, but think we should maintain a functioning democracy.

Why should the rich be allowed to have such obsene wealth which they waste on frivolous pursuits?

Most people would all be better of if income and wealth was distributed much more equally.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

The overuse of ellipses on this site must be controlled. Communism provides the perfect avenue for any control. Communism works, IN PRACTISE!

Faggot.

 

[sam04u]

i fucking hope you trolling...if not then get out from keyboard and go and get some sun becase your brain starting to melt from computer radiation...

You can't stop the revolution troll.

I'm with you Comrade Nebuchanezzar!

 

[jb_nc]

Communism has some good points and bad points. It's like anything. I'm not a communist, more a socialist. I favour nationalisation of factors of production, but think we should maintain a functioning democracy.

Why should the rich be allowed to have such obsene wealth which they waste on frivolous pursuits?

Most people would all be better of if income and wealth was distributed much more equally.

A "national socialist" one may say

 

[Silver Persian]

I'm with you if all you want is moderate welfare statism! (eg something like we have now)

WWOOOO MODERATE WELFARE STATIsM

 

[zeam]

lol you all die cunts...where are sane people

 

[jb_nc]

AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          AYN RAND          fuck you

 

[jb_nc]

lol you all die cunts...where are sane people

its you.

you are die cunt.

sane people where???

 

[sam04u]

lol you all die cunts...where are sane people

The future must suck for people like you.

Where will you be when it's revolution time?