Stalin was not a communist! [Archive]

Hikaru Zero

03-29-2006, 07:56 PM

Why did you say you agree, then say Stalin equals Communism? or is there sommit oim missun?

An exclaimation mark, followed by an equals sign, means "NOT EQUAL TO" in most forms of logic, programming, and physics. (Sometimes, tilde equals ~= is used to represent "NOT EQUAL TO", but that is confusing as tilde equals can also mean "APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO" or in some programming languages, "MATCHES")

It wasn't a typo. ;) Hope that explains it. As I'm a programmer, I have a tendency to use symbols like this to explain relationships -- sorry that it wasn't clear.

"Stalin became general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party in 1922"
he WAS a Communist
there is no ifs, ands, or buts

So ... as long as I SAY that I'm Christian, and as long as people BELIEVE that I'm Christian, and accept me into Christendom, I AM a Christian even if I think Jesus was Satan and God doesn't exist?

"there is no ifs, ands, or buts"

Duck, you shame my home state of PA, lol. ;) j/k

Stalin probably believed he was communist. But Stalin was not a communist; communism is a CLASSLESS government, with no social castes or heirarchies. While there may be a leader (or a group that leads the direction of the country), communism does NOT leave room for a dictator.

Go read the Communist Manifesto, and you will understand why Stalin was NOT a communist.

From Wikipedia:

"Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and can be classified as a multivariant branch of the broader socialist movement." - Communism, Wikipedia.org

"However, under Stalin's leadership, evidence emerged that dented faith in the possibility of achieving communism within the framework of the Soviet model. Stalin had created in the Soviet Union a repressive state that dominated every aspect of life. After Stalin's death, the Soviet Union's new leader, Nikita Khrushchev admitted the enormity of the repression that took place under Stalin." - Communism, Wikipedia.org

Note in the above quote, communism is marked as "not achieved."

"Consequently, most of the world's Communist parties, who previously adhered to Stalinism, abandoned it and, to a greater or lesser degree, adopted the moderately reformist positions of Khruschchev." - Stalinism, Wikipedia.org

"Trotskyists argue that the "Stalinist USSR" was not socialist (and certainly not communist), but a bureaucratized degenerated workers' state—that is, a non-capitalist state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class." - Stalinism, Wikipedia.org

If Stalin wasn't a communist, what was he?

A Stalinist.

Have you never heard the term before?

Heck, I learned this term in my Modern *US* History class in high school ... and we weren't even talking about Russia!

peaceloveandshrooms

03-30-2006, 02:01 AM

do you think being leader of the soviet union was easy?

there was war all around...

the only thing that defeated communism was greed...

so maybe greed is stronger than goodness... :H
Greed is not why communism failed. That "communism" wasn't true communism. In real communism, there would be no need to force ideas on anyone or take away freedoms. There can be "greed" in communism as long as that "greed"is for the whole society, not just one individual. You can be greedy to improve your society, and that's not bad greed. Greed is only bad when it equals selfishness.

Lying in a field

03-30-2006, 05:20 AM

Cooloner I don't know how you can honestly look at history and go so easy on stalin.

He makes me shudder.

But true communist he was not.

Duck

03-30-2006, 06:12 AM

he may have not been a "true" communist
but no leaders ever were

communism is a retarded idea anyway

Lying in a field

03-30-2006, 07:15 AM

Yes...but not as retarted as capitalism.

spooner

03-30-2006, 12:01 PM

I was under the impression that the big split was one state communism (ie: Stalinism) and one world communism (Trotskyism). If i'm wrong, correct me (just don't base any opinion on Wikipedia).

BlackBillBlake

03-30-2006, 01:15 PM

do you think being leader of the soviet union was easy?

there was war all around...

the only thing that defeated communism was greed...

so maybe greed is stronger than goodness... :H
I think being leader of the Soviet Union was probably easier than the life inflicted on many of its citizens.

Communism was never defeated because it was never established in Russia.

Occam

03-30-2006, 02:40 PM

There was a centrist dictatorship in the USSR
Not a communist state.

And stalin might have had some good intentions.. but
What road is paved with such? [his effect on the people, not him]

There has never been a communist nation on earth

The closest we come to it is buddhist tibet

Occam

La Dulce Vita

03-30-2006, 03:37 PM

Yes...but not as retarted as capitalism. get rid of your computer .

BlackBillBlake

03-30-2006, 05:08 PM

The closest we come to it is buddhist tibet

Occam
I was under the impression that before the Chinese invasion, Tibet was a theocracy or something similar. It was hardly communism as Marx would have understood it, in a country ruled over by a de facto 'god-king'.

Duck

03-30-2006, 05:30 PM

Yes...but not as retarted as capitalism.you are joking, right?

Hikaru Zero

03-30-2006, 08:20 PM

he may have not been a "true" communist
but no leaders ever were

EXACTLY.

So stop being prejudiced against Communism! You have NOTHING to base your contempt against!

communism is a retarded idea anyway

You do not even know what communism is!

Your idea of communism being retarded, is what's retarded.

I was under the impression that the big split was one state communism (ie: Stalinism) and one world communism (Trotskyism). If i'm wrong, correct me (just don't base any opinion on Wikipedia).

Why shouldn't I base any opinion on Wikipedia?

Studies have shown that Wikipedia is actually, on average, MORE correct than CLOSED encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, the vast majority of Wikipedia's information first came from Nupedia, the project that started Wikipedia, which is a CLOSED encyclopedia.

And yes -- Trotskyism was much closer to communism than Stalinism could have ever hoped to be. As the Trotskys said before, STALINISM IS NOT CLOSE TO COMMUNISM. It is a dictatorship that doens't even fall into the category of socialism!

Originally Posted by Lying in a field
Yes...but not as retarted as capitalism.you are joking, right?

Why would he be joking? Capitalism is one of the worst ideas to have ever hit the face of the planet, next to genocide.

It creates a multitude of multi-billionaires that control all of a country and have enough authority to pressure most of the world into compliance (save those god damned freedom fighte--I mean terrorist motherfuckers!!), and if removing a single all-powerful dictator was hard, try removing several hundred of them.

Duck

03-31-2006, 12:26 AM

You do not even know what communism is!

Your idea of communism being retarded, is what's retarded.because I disagree with communism I don't know what it is?
how is that logical in any way?

Duck

03-31-2006, 12:34 AM

Why would he be joking? Capitalism is one of the worst ideas to have ever hit the face of the planet, next to genocide.

It creates a multitude of multi-billionaires that control all of a country and have enough authority to pressure most of the world into compliance (save those god damned freedom fighte--I mean terrorist motherfuckers!!), and if removing a single all-powerful dictator was hard, try removing several hundred of them.we make the billionaires by buying their shit...
if you don't like it, don't buy their shit

Occam

03-31-2006, 01:00 AM

I was under the impression that before the Chinese invasion, Tibet was a theocracy or something similar. It was hardly communism as Marx would have understood it, in a country ruled over by a de facto 'god-king'.
BlackBill

Was thinking how the people actually lived..Not the 'name' of it.
Were the people used and controlled or did they not have more freedom
than the godking.?
Was not the social hierarchy pretty 'flat'. The system being more like
a family where dad dosnt say/do much and the kids have great respect
for him and call him Sir and ask him for wisdom,,not discipline.

To occam, communism is where ALL people are responsible for ALL
other people..co-operation, not competition.

Who was marx? http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

Occam

peaceloveandshrooms

03-31-2006, 01:37 AM

Absolutely NOT! There was virtually no industrial working class in Russia at the time of Stalin, and he certainly was not a part of the one that existed. I honestly believe that Stalin was a just another nationalist dicator. I would even say that he was more of a fascist than a marxist.

Lying in a field

03-31-2006, 05:03 AM

get rid of your computer .
Care to explain?

Hikaru Zero

03-31-2006, 06:16 AM

because I disagree with communism I don't know what it is?
how is that logical in any way?

You claim Communism is a retarded idea but it has never even actually been implmented -- not even countries like China have a correct communist state.

NOBODY here can say that Communism is or isn't a bad idea. Nobody knows for sure if it can truly work. Anyone who does say this (you) has, as said previously, a retarded outlook on Communism. Retarded. In the sense of, missing vital knowledge/understanding of communism.

You can't not have a retarded viewpoint, without having seen actually communism.

I say, it's worth a shot because it sounds like a good idea. But I don't know. I just know that what's been implemented is not communism, and all those attempts were bad ideas.

we make the billionaires by buying their shit...
if you don't like it, don't buy their shit

I don't buy their shit. I boycott Microsoft. I boycott Walmart. I support small shops over larger shops.

And even that is not enough to do it.

We alone do not make the billionaires. The system provides the form, the fooled public provides the resources to give to them, and they provide the networking they need to sit high and pretty on their stacks of 100 dollar bills and property deeds.

I would even say that he was more of a fascist than a marxist.

Finally, someone who has been listening!

Even the communists say that Stalin was fascist and not communist.

Occam

03-31-2006, 10:14 AM

Hey. Lets go by results.. not theory

How many communist states have ever existed?
NONE

While there is a plethora of capitalist states. And all states will end up capitalist.

OUR job.. is to turn world capitalism. Into.........
[a world state]?
Could be worse

as winston said..capitalism is a 'lesser' of 2 evils.

Occam

Duck

03-31-2006, 05:36 PM

You claim Communism is a retarded idea but it has never even actually been implmented -- not even countries like China have a correct communist state.

NOBODY here can say that Communism is or isn't a bad idea. Nobody knows for sure if it can truly work. Anyone who does say this (you) has, as said previously, a retarded outlook on Communism. Retarded. In the sense of, missing vital knowledge/understanding of communism.

You can't not have a retarded viewpoint, without having seen actually communism.
I'm not talking about whether it would work or not, I think it is just a stupid idea, that it's not all that fair and such
the reality is that no political system (including anarchy) will ever work perfect, human nature doe snot allow it

Hikaru Zero

03-31-2006, 05:45 PM

Occam ...

I disagree, and here is why ...

The two "evils" you speak of, are not capitalism and communism.

Rather, they are democracy and dictatorship.

Yes, democracy is the lesser of those two evils, and the world will eventually turn into a democracy.

However.

Communism is not entirely incompatible with democracy.

Communism is derived from socialism, and socialism is a form of economic structure, not a form of government. While communism does provide a structure of government, communism is not inherently incompatible with democracy -- communism dictates a classless society -- therefore, all of its members are equal -- and therefore, democracy may actually become very prominent in a communist state.

This is why I am so adamant about people not dissing communism.

The United States and many countries, have declared a war on communism, after the Red Scare and Cold War. Why? Because the word "communism" was associated with "dictatorship" not "democracy."

The truth is, communism is more of a substitute term for a type of socialistic democratic state. It does not leave room for dictatorship. And the vast majority of the so-called "free" world, truly believes that communism is the thing of dictators and must be stomped out from the world.

Of course, we similarly believe this because Hitler was the head of the Nazis -- or the National Socialist German Worker's Party -- so socialism gets a lot of prejudice too -- even though socialism isn't even a form of government!

People blindly hate these things, and I intend to erase as much blind hatred from people's eyes as I can.

I think communism, or at least a democratic form of socialism, deserves a chance. As it stands now, capitalism creates hundreds of dictators, whereas any communist state has only created one at a time.

Hikaru Zero

03-31-2006, 05:55 PM

I'm not talking about whether it would work or not, I think it is just a stupid idea, that it's not all that fair and such
the reality is that no political system (including anarchy) will ever work perfect, human nature doe snot allow it

It's not a question of working perfect, Duck. It's a question of working without screwing people over. Look at capitalism right now -- over how many years of the US being on top, and we have millions that are hungry. We have countless impoverished and homeless. Probably more than 1/3 of our country is actually BELOW the "poverty line" where we must sacrifice things like transportation and shelter in order to eat and live.

Do you call that "success" just because it's been around for years and years?

In that case, dictatorships are also a success. So is feudalism.

But if you take into account the fact that, in a socialist dictatorship state, Hitler took a country such as Germany, from having a collar around its neck on its knees giving its scraps to the other world powers as reparations, to being a threatening military force that was able to conquer the majority of Europe, in ONLY SEVEN YEARS ...

That is what I might call a properly "configured" socialist state.

And OUR state, the United States, is capable of such radical change. But we are stuck here limited by capitalism. Our rate of growth is limited by the corporations that vie for power over our consumers.

You say that communism is not a fair idea.

I say that not giving communism even half of a chance, is not a fair idea.

Edit: Oh also -- and if you believe that "Anarchy" can be considered a political system, you're out of your mind -- that's just absurd. Anarchy will never work as a form of government, because like socialism, it is NOT a form of government. It is a state of government -- in this case, the lack thereof.

Occam

03-31-2006, 07:39 PM

Occam ...

I disagree, and here is why ...
The two "evils" you speak of, are not capitalism and communism.
Rather, they are democracy and dictatorship.
Yes, democracy is the lesser of those two evils, and the world will eventually turn into a democracy.
However.
Communism is not entirely incompatible with democracy.

Communism is derived from socialism, and socialism is a form of economic structure, not a form of government. While communism does provide a structure of government, communism is not inherently incompatible with democracy -- communism dictates a classless society -- therefore, all of its members are equal -- and therefore, democracy may actually become very prominent in a communist state.

This is why I am so adamant about people not dissing communism.

The United States and many countries, have declared a war on communism, after the Red Scare and Cold War. Why? Because the word "communism" was associated with "dictatorship" not "democracy."
The truth is, communism is more of a substitute term for a type of socialistic democratic state. It does not leave room for dictatorship. And the vast majority of the so-called "free" world, truly believes that communism is the thing of dictators and must be stomped out from the world.

Of course, we similarly believe this because Hitler was the head of the Nazis -- or the National Socialist German Worker's Party -- so socialism gets a lot of prejudice too -- even though socialism isn't even a form of government!
People blindly hate these things, and I intend to erase as much blind hatred from people's eyes as I can.
I think communism, or at least a democratic form of socialism, deserves a chance. As it stands now, capitalism creates hundreds of dictators, whereas any communist state has only created one at a time. Hiky

Wellmet my friend.

Beg to differ but the west is not at war with communism.
It is at war with the thing it defined to justify war footing.
terrorism
The only two 'communist states'.. in name only..are china and vietnam.. and they are fervently expanding their capitalist ecconomic system to provide money for their wisened hardline, questionable leaders to buy stupid..arms.
Or buy wise. infrastructure.

cannot agree further
you say communism is but a socialist democratic state that does not leave room for dictatorship

occam gives u ONE benefit of the doubt
would u like to say that again?

Occam

Duck

04-01-2006, 02:18 AM

It's not a question of working perfect, Duck. It's a question of working without screwing people over. Look at capitalism right now -- over how many years of the US being on top, and we have millions that are hungry. We have countless impoverished and homeless. Probably more than 1/3 of our country is actually BELOW the "poverty line" where we must sacrifice things like transportation and shelter in order to eat and live.

Do you call that "success" just because it's been around for years and years?

In that case, dictatorships are also a success. So is feudalism.

But if you take into account the fact that, in a socialist dictatorship state, Hitler took a country such as Germany, from having a collar around its neck on its knees giving its scraps to the other world powers as reparations, to being a threatening military force that was able to conquer the majority of Europe, in ONLY SEVEN YEARS ...

That is what I might call a properly "configured" socialist state.

And OUR state, the United States, is capable of such radical change. But we are stuck here limited by capitalism. Our rate of growth is limited by the corporations that vie for power over our consumers.

You say that communism is not a fair idea.

I say that not giving communism even half of a chance, is not a fair idea.

Edit: Oh also -- and if you believe that "Anarchy" can be considered a political system, you're out of your mind -- that's just absurd. Anarchy will never work as a form of government, because like socialism, it is NOT a form of government. It is a state of government -- in this case, the lack thereof.Again, you are talking about succes, and if it makes everyone happy. I am only talking about what is fair. Having a system that stops poverty A) would not be fair B) would not work out right. Even trying to make everyone even is unfair because it limits people's potential. Everyone has the potential to become rich, everyone has the potential to be a bum, it's what you make of yourself.

I agree about the anarchy thing, I just had to put that in there to avoid soemone bitching to me about anarchy

Hikaru Zero

04-01-2006, 04:15 AM

Beg to differ but the west is not at war with communism.
It is at war with the thing it defined to justify war footing.
terrorism

The West wars against both. Terrorism and communism are seen hand-in-hand.

Why did we get involved in Vietnam? To stop the spread of Communism. Why did we put Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq? To stop the spread of Communism.

Why do we put pressure on Russia, and China? To stop the spread of Communism.

The Cuban Missile Crisis left us with more of the same.

The war on terror is what is in focus.
But the general populace still fears communism.
Even if it's on the back burner for now.

The only two 'communist states'.. in name only..are china and vietnam.. and they are fervently expanding their capitalist ecconomic system to provide money for their wisened hardline, questionable leaders to buy stupid..arms.
Or buy wise. infrastructure.

Right, because capitalism is generally better for ramping up the GDP of a nation. China wants to stay in the influence fight.

you say communism is but a socialist democratic state that does not leave room for dictatorship

occam gives u ONE benefit of the doubt
would u like to say that again?

I didn't say that.

I said it is like a socialist democratic state. It has a lot of its similarities. But so far its implementation has never been even remotely democratic, and THAT is a major impediment to why it has never been communist either.

As far as I am aware, you don't NEED democracy for communism. But democracy is kind of the point of it -- equal power and social status for all.

Again, you are talking about succes, and if it makes everyone happy. I am only talking about what is fair.

You were the one who originally said that no system will work perfect -- you never elaborated on how it was unfair, so I didn't address that part of your argument -- it was just a loose part that didn't have any back up.

Having a system that stops poverty A) would not be fair B) would not work out right. Even trying to make everyone even is unfair because it limits people's potential. Everyone has the potential to become rich, everyone has the potential to be a bum, it's what you make of yourself.

It's not "a system that stops poverty." If you want to be impoverished, go right ahead, it's not like the system forces you to spend your money, you could give it away.

Trying to make everyone even in a base case is not unfair.

Whatever happened to all men are created equal.

Oh and take it from me and my friends. We kind of grew up in poverty, and live in poverty now.

POVERTY FUCKING SUCKS. IF YOU CAN GET AWAY WITHOUT IT, FUCKING AWESOME.

You say everyone has the potential to become rich -- everyone has the potential to be a bum -- this does not change with communism, capitalism, socialism, dictatorships, or anything. Just because you equalize it doesn't mean that the potential goes away.

Besides. NOBODY wants to live in poverty. EVERYBODY wants to be rich -- or at least rich enough to live comfortably.

Even in this kind of a society, what you make of yourself is what matters. It's no longer "how much you make" but "what you make" that matters. That is the kind of way society should be, I believe.

I agree about the anarchy thing, I just had to put that in there to avoid soemone bitching to me about anarchy

Yeah, those fuckin' anarchists. =) Always bitching.

waaaait a second --- :D

Lying in a field

04-01-2006, 04:59 AM

99% of people living under capitalist rule except those at the bottom tend not to be able to see the myth that "Everyone gets a fair go of success". OF course this is entirely untrue....capitalism depends on a pyramid. I'm currently at the bottom, but i'm lucky I have the intelligence and upbringing backing me to fight my way back up the ladder. Unfortunately this will push somebody else back down. Thankfully we have welfare....Capitalism's guilty consciense.

Duck

04-01-2006, 07:26 AM

It's not "a system that stops poverty." If you want to be impoverished, go right ahead, it's not like the system forces you to spend your money, you could give it away.I was not saying that communism is really, just that (from what I see here) what your idea of the perfect society is that way

Trying to make everyone even in a base case is not unfair.

Whatever happened to all men are created equal.all men are not created equal
different people have different traits, different skills, different disorders, etc. etc.

EDIT:
oh and Hikaru, I must commend you on how many arguments you are holding at a time

Hikaru Zero

04-01-2006, 04:23 PM

I was not saying that communism is really, just that (from what I see here) what your idea of the perfect society is that way

Sure, my idea of a perfect society would be one that eliminates the necessity of poverty. Of course, my idea of a perfect society is probably very different from communism -- I would like to see a system where, all citizens are required to perform a job, to recieve energy credits (money based on the nation/world's energy resources, not paper money) they can exchange for other products (based on the net energy spent creating that product) and services. I would like to see a system where, you can work any job that you want -- even if there are too many doctors or programmers or scientists -- everyone's demands can be balanced out equally.

How is that possible? Very simple actually. Say the nation needs a total of 10 doctors. You have 5 doctors that already are doctors, and you have 8 people that want to become doctors. What do you do? You use the 5 doctors, and you send the 8 trainees to school to become doctors. Once they are all doctors, you rotate them between jobs.

What do you do about the jobs that people don't want to do, like collect garbage? EVERYBODY must help out. If nobody will do a necessary job, citizens will be called on to help out. Even if that means, one day out of every month, you have to collect the garbage for your whole neighbourhood, big deal, I think most people wouldn't mind biting the bullet like that for their country.

And to boot, this would be based in a society where, if you didn't work the 3 or 4 hours a day that might be necessary to keep the society stable, your citizenship would be revoked -- and this would be common. If you stopped working for a day or two, your citizenship would be gone for the next day -- no energy credits, etc. Anyone who crossed the borders and wanted to become a citizen, could do that -- just work for however many days you like and no matter where you are (even if you live nowhere), you are still a citizen.

It would pretty much be mandatory service to the rest of your community, if you want to be a citizen. That would be the only factor necessary. You could have citizenship extended for sick days and vacation and stuff ... you could have citizenship extended when leaving the country, etc.

Perhaps to say revoked citizenship is not accurate to my meaning -- disabled citizenship, or citizenship in a status of "non-service."

People could even be appointed to management positions and stuff.

That's what I think would be neat -- sorry to go off into nowhere on this discussion, hehe ...

Either way, if that erases poverty, then I can rest easy. You say erasing poverty isn't fair. I say, letting poverty exist isn't fair.

all men are not created equal
different people have different traits, different skills, different disorders, etc. etc.

Yes.

However.

All men are created with the same basic inherent rights.

I did not say all men are created the same.

I said all men are created equal. Equal in status. Equal in rights. This is what was meant by the saying.

One of those rights should be, the right to be the same social status as everyone else. The right to live comfortably. As things stand now, we have millions and millions, if not billions, in castes that are low enough for them to struggle to live -- even in today's modern, sophisticated world.

If communism can solve that -- then I support it.

oh and Hikaru, I must commend you on how many arguments you are holding at a time

Yeah man, no sweat. :H

Duck

04-01-2006, 11:08 PM

All men are created with the same basic inherent rights.

I did not say all men are created the same.

I said all men are created equal. Equal in status. Equal in rights. This is what was meant by the saying.

One of those rights should be, the right to be the same social status as everyone else. The right to live comfortably. As things stand now, we have millions and millions, if not billions, in castes that are low enough for them to struggle to live -- even in today's modern, sophisticated world.

If communism can solve that -- then I support it.
hmmmmm...
I do understand what you are saying, but I can't say that I agree
I don't think that should be a right. I also think that it impedes on other's rights in ways.

Hikaru Zero

04-02-2006, 04:17 AM

hmmmmm...
I do understand what you are saying, but I can't say that I agree
I don't think that should be a right. I also think that it impedes on other's rights in ways.

Yeah? Well I think YOU impede on others rights in ways!!

:D ;)

But seriously ... what "rights" do you think it impedes on?

Occam

04-02-2006, 12:21 PM

I don't think that should be a right. I also think that it impedes on other's rights in ways. How does everyone being equal and having equal rights cause a problem for U
Does that IMPEDE your desire to be 'above others'?

Are u a KING in the body of a commoner?

Occam

BlackBillBlake

04-02-2006, 02:20 PM

BlackBill

Who was marx? http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

Occam
Co-author of the 'Communist Party Manifesto'. I foolishly mentioned him as I thought this thread was about communism, and it is marx's definitions which are usually accepted as the basic definition of what is meant.
I wonder how many of our 'commies' here have read it? Or any of Marx's other works....

Occam

04-02-2006, 03:16 PM

Co-author of the 'Communist Party Manifesto'. I foolishly mentioned him as I thought this thread was about communism, and it is marx's definitions which are usually accepted as the basic definition of what is meant.
I wonder how many of our 'commies' here have read it? Or any of Marx's other works.... BlackBill

We all know what it is about... Occam doesnt need to read marx to know why he wrote.
This is called human understanding of the concept of equality and justice.
Too much is placed in theory. Not enough in ethical and moral action.
Theory IS USED to propagate power.
A Stalin and Mao showed us so well.

Occam also knows who jesus was.. but has not read the bible...
Does that mean he cannot act as jesus did.? That he cannot be a
good man till he he read every word jesus said?
That he cannot be a socialist who takes responsibillity for society untill he has read all that marx said?

Dont attempt insult... maybe occam had the same ideas WITHOUT MARX.
JUST..as he had the same ideas.. WITHOUT JESUS.

Occam

BlackBillBlake

04-02-2006, 04:10 PM

BlackBill

We all know what it is about... Occam doesnt need to read marx to know why he wrote.
This is called human understanding of the concept of equality and justice.
Too much is placed in theory. Not enough in ethical and moral action.
Theory IS USED to propagate power.
A Stalin and Mao showed us so well.

Occam also knows who jesus was.. but has not read the bible...
Does that mean he cannot act as jesus did.? That he cannot be a
good man till he he read every word jesus said?
That he cannot be a socialist who takes responsibillity for society untill he has read all that marx said?

Dont attempt insult... maybe occam had the same ideas WITHOUT MARX.
JUST..as he had the same ideas.. WITHOUT JESUS.

Occam
It's not my intention to insult anyone, and if that's the way it came over I am sorry.
My point is that it seems many people like to talk about 'historical' communism without much knowledge of Marx's critique of capitalism, which is what gave rise to it in the first palce. Russia for instance was never organized along Marxist principles. If a person doesn't know what those principles are, then how can they say it was or wasn't communism the Soviets were practicing? Without some basic understanding, it's pretty pointless in my opinion. I wonder if they did have such knowledge if they'd still be so keen.
There are many things in Marx which are somewhat questionable, economic determinism for example.

Myself, I am not a communist, a socialist, yes, but not a full blown communist. The underlying flaw seems to me to be the same one behind the US constitution that 'all men are created free and equal'. That seems to me like an absurdity, which even an elementary experience of life would show clearly to be untrue. Even on a physical level, there is no basic equality, and when it comes to intelligence and so forth, clearly people are not born equal.

But either way, I don't see how a person who thinks of themself as a communist could really avoid looking into Marx at some time. No more could a christian avoid the Bible.

You say maybe Occam has the same ideas without Marx, but if Occam doesn't know what Marx said, Occam could never know that.

Hikaru Zero

04-02-2006, 08:48 PM

Russia for instance was never organized along Marxist principles. If a person doesn't know what those principles are, then how can they say it was or wasn't communism the Soviets were practicing?

Exxxxxxactly.

But someone who does know what those principals are, CAN say it was or wasn't communism.

And it wasn't communism. I am not saying this because I have done some conclusive study on what those principals are, I am saying this because those who HAVE done conclusive studies on what those principals are, are saying that it wasn't communism.

I tend to side with the people who know what they're talking about ...

Even on a physical level, there is no basic equality, and when it comes to intelligence and so forth, clearly people are not born equal.

Not meant as an insult, but I don't think you understand the meaning between the phrase "all men are created free and equal."

It is not a phrase describing the state of the body, or the state of the mind, or even the state of the spirit. Rather, it is a phrase describing only the nature of these three things.

Every person has equal physical rights. Everyone has a mind that is free to think as it does. Everyone has a spirit that is free to do as it wishes (so long as it doesn't impeded on others' physical rights).

It is not about the state of these things. Rather, about the nature of these things. It's about the rights of men, not the men themselves.

In THIS sense, all men are created free and equal. And no law nor person should discriminate so as to impede either of these basic inherent rights. That is what the forefathers meant.

You say maybe Occam has the same ideas without Marx, but if Occam doesn't know what Marx said, Occam could never know that.

These days, we are taught in schools what some of Marx's ideas are. It is not that difficult to have crossed some of Marx's ideas and realized they were your own, in one's span of tens or hundreds of thousands of days on this Earth, methinks.

Alden

04-02-2006, 10:41 PM

I've barely read the posts but I just want to say, WHAT WOULD COMMUNISM BE WITHOUT STALIN!!!

peaceloveandshrooms

04-03-2006, 05:33 AM

Are you kidding? Stalin gave communism a horrible reputation when he wasn't even communist!

Duck

04-03-2006, 05:55 AM

How does everyone being equal and having equal rights cause a problem for U
Does that IMPEDE your desire to be 'above others'?

Are u a KING in the body of a commoner?

Occamwhat does this have to do with me being above others?
you are a dumbassYeah? Well I think YOU impede on others rights in ways!!

:D ;)

But seriously ... what "rights" do you think it impedes on?I had a list then, I realized nothing can really be set as a "right", seeing how everyone values different things. There are alot of people that are more focused on themselves. If this benefits them, so be it, could that not just be natural selection? Communism is not in human nature.

Hikaru Zero

04-03-2006, 06:54 AM

I had a list then, I realized nothing can really be set as a "right", seeing how everyone values different things. There are alot of people that are more focused on themselves. If this benefits them, so be it, could that not just be natural selection? Communism is not in human nature.

Nothing can be set as a "right"?

Welcome to any country in the known world, where your rights to life, liberty, and property, are protected, and described legally.

Rights exist. It is IMPOSSIBLE to deny that rights exist. What do you call a right, then? Put simply, a right is a claim to something.

There are some fundamental, inalienable rights that exist for all individuals. By the virtue of being an individual and having an ego, we each have a life. This life, that which we call "us", is the most fundamental and basic part of "us" -- that is why we call it such. Any thing that is sentient has a claim to direct and control its sentience and self which creates the sentience. That is the right to live. That also includes the right to be free. The right to have property is not a basic inalienable right, because it can be argued that no sentient being has a claim over anything other than what is determined as its "self."

Freedom and life are the two most fundamental claims of rights that all beings have, by virtue of being beings.

And from those rights come other rights such as the right to owning property and more explicit rights like the right to operate a vehicle (when one has a license), etc.

How can you say that there is no such thing as a "right" unless you are thinking of a different concept?

Hikaru Zero

04-03-2006, 06:57 AM

what does this have to do with me being above others?
you are a dumbass

You mean, what does "my inequality in being above others" have to do with "the equality of all people"? Or, simply, what does inequality have to do with equality?

Come on man, ya gotta pay a little bit more attention then that. I could see "what does a yo-yo have to do with sauerkraut?" but this is a bit much.

m6m

04-03-2006, 08:16 AM

Communism is more than just an end result, it's also the dialectical means to that end.

It's a realistic process that passes through many stages, and realizes that people who have been savagely brutalized generation after generation for thousands of years by the violence of patriarchal property aren't going to be in the mood for bourgeois pleasantries.

If beat a chained dog every day of its life, and you set him free, am I going to blame you for my now shreaded cloths and this bleeding bite out of my ass?

Am I going to blame the dog for not wagging his tale and licking my hand?

The masses of Russia and China were chained like dogs, Stalin and Mao rose from amongst these masses, and were more humane than we have any right to expect.

I would've expected worse than Stalin or Mao for at least the first century, and then probably expect some periodic brutal backsliding for the first millenium at least.

Sure, I can stand and declare a high-minded philosophical manifesto, but with the liberated masses running wild in all directions, I would have been trampled under their running feet.

Revolution amongst the masses is hard, brutal and no place for those who can't comprehend a mad-dog reality.

Stalin and Mao are Communist in its most primitive stage of social liberation from the oppression of patriarchal property.

That's why they were so loved by the masses, because the people understood what they were up against.

The people understood that they were survivors, and just that survival was the symbol of victorious revolution in itself.

Duck

04-03-2006, 07:53 PM

You mean, what does "my inequality in being above others" have to do with "the equality of all people"? Or, simply, what does inequality have to do with equality?

Come on man, ya gotta pay a little bit more attention then that. I could see "what does a yo-yo have to do with sauerkraut?" but this is a bit much.no, what does my opinion ont he matter have to do with me thinking I'm above others?
in fact, what does it have to do with me thinking anyone is above anyone else?
we are all human, we are all living pieces of shit

Duck

04-03-2006, 07:56 PM

Nothing can be set as a "right"?

Welcome to any country in the known world, where your rights to life, liberty, and property, are protected, and described legally.

Rights exist. It is IMPOSSIBLE to deny that rights exist. What do you call a right, then? Put simply, a right is a claim to something.

There are some fundamental, inalienable rights that exist for all individuals. By the virtue of being an individual and having an ego, we each have a life. This life, that which we call "us", is the most fundamental and basic part of "us" -- that is why we call it such. Any thing that is sentient has a claim to direct and control its sentience and self which creates the sentience. That is the right to live. That also includes the right to be free. The right to have property is not a basic inalienable right, because it can be argued that no sentient being has a claim over anything other than what is determined as its "self."

Freedom and life are the two most fundamental claims of rights that all beings have, by virtue of being beings.

And from those rights come other rights such as the right to owning property and more explicit rights like the right to operate a vehicle (when one has a license), etc.

How can you say that there is no such thing as a "right" unless you are thinking of a different concept?I am saying there are no set rights. A right is what a person (or society) feels that everyone deserves. Differnet people see different things as rights, it is opinion based, such as morals. We have legal rights, we have a sort of legal morality, but that does not mean it is a set belief.