An ex-hippy youth

Hey y'all,

I used to post on Hippyland as "Kid Hippy" back when I was 10-13 years old, and I remember how awesome these forums were. I'm 17 now, and no longer a Hippy, but I still love the Hippy scene and respect Hippies (young and old) so I've decided to come back and hang out here. It's great to be back, to say the least!

Power to the People!

 

Yaaaaayy!!! I thought that Andrei was a nice name, and thought about naming my son that, but then I realized that I don't really know how to pronounce it.

 

It's easy: Ahn-dray.

 

Nah, I just grew out of it around 14 or so... I'm a revolutionary Communist now, that's all.

 

ive always been a stong supporter of communist revolution....doesnt stop me from my hippy tendencies....

 

. . .you mean, you haven't received your certificate from ye olde hippee brethren? AHH! IMPOSTER! GET OUT!

 

I think communist woulf o been a great government if it could of work...but we have people in the world that the more power they get the more they whant... So if we get a person to actually read how communist shoulf of work...id be all for it...

 

Yeah yeah... Communism "failed"...

Actually, my friend, you may be suprised to learn that it didn't!

Like The Draft Programme of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA @ http://2changetheworld.info/ describes:

The revolutions in the Soviet Union and China were eventually defeated, but they did not fail! They were born into a world in which imperialism was still far stronger internationally. They grew up in “soil” in which capitalism—with its inequalities, backwardness, and dog-eat-dog outlook—had not been totally dug up and could only be dug up through a long historical process. This soil generated new bourgeois forces who sought to restore capitalism. And at key junctures these young revolutions confronted all the power of the old order in crucial trials of strength.

The most significant thing is not that they were eventually defeated, nor that they made mistakes in confronting challenges that were truly unprecedented. No, the most significant and really amazing thing is just how much they accomplished in the relatively short time they held power, and how far they were able to advance towards communism, inspiring the world with a glimpse of the future.

The bourgeoisie wants to distort and hide this revolutionary history from the masses, using these defeats to say that this kind of a society will never work. But genuine communists have summed up the real lessons of these revolutionary experiences. Looking at the sweep of historical development, these reversals of socialist revolution are but temporary setbacks along the road to the final goal of a communist world. The proletariat is a class coming of age, still young and learning from its defeats as well as its achievements. Like a growing baby who is learning to walk, it will fall at first. But eventually, as it learns from its missteps and as its legs grow stronger, it will not only learn to walk, but to run, and eventually to scale the highest mountain of all—the abolition of all classes and class distinctions.

Then there's that whole crap about human nature...
First off there is something majorly wrong with this- it is a very metaphysical argument. By this argument, the bourgeoisie and their apologists suggest that there is some "magical force" and "inherent nature" that runs through every single human being that makes them magically greedy and evil and baby-killin' monsters. It give credit to a higher power (God/The Supreme Being/The Power of the Universe) and to a system of idealistic metaphysics, all of which have been proven (by objective reality and by logic) to not exist at all! [See Anti-Dühring and The Dialectics of Nature by Friedrich Engels, and A Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right by Karl Marx]

Furthermore, Marx pointed out that the view that human nature dooms Socialism to failure merely reflects the production relations of Capitalism (and the society built around it), and not some never-changing "force" within human beings throughout history. Bourgeois economists assume that production relations of Capitalism are somehow eternal (and just looking at how history has developed proves this wrong), or in any case that they are the pinnacle of evolution for human relations, and that any changes in society can only be made in bourgeois ways. But historical materialism (dialectical materialism) proves that not only these production relations but the ideas built around them- like the "unchangeability of human nature"- are in fact historically limited, are only the product of this particular stage in development, and will be surpassed by the further advance of history. Social relations, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism teaches us, change with social conditions.

Engels explained why there have been certain characteristics to human society and to attitudes of people: this is all part of the fact that up until now there has not been a basis to eliminate scarcity and the struggle for individual existence. (Greed is a survival technique, and only when it is needed to survive- and you DO need it to survive in a fucked-up, dog-eat-dog system like this- be you a poor single mother in a trailer-park or the CEO of U.S. Steel- is it implemented...) But now, Engels said, this basis has been established. Now, not only is exploitative Capitalism unneccessary, but the persistence of it is an actual and direct hindrance to the further liberation of productive forces (i.e. the proletariat). NOW a social revolution is possible- and urgently demanded- to move humanity beyond all that and to a new stage of human history. [See Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels]

For more information on this, read Phony Communism is Dead... Long Live Real Communism! by Bob Avakian

Also, to quote Bob Avakian in "Communists Are Rebels":

First, as for "human nature," there is in fact no such thing -- in the sense in which the concept is conventionally used. Different ages in human history have each has their own view of both what such "human nature" is and ought to be -- and more specifically, different classes within each epoch have had their own, conflicting views on this. In general, its is the rule that the dominate ideas on this (as on all important questions) are, as Marx and Engels explained, the ideas of the dominate, or ruling, class -- having political control of society, and the control of the most important means of production, upon which this political domination is based in the final analysis, the ruling classes throughout history have therefore also had ideological domination; and their principles, ethics, morals, beliefs, values, etc. have reflected and served their political domination and the economic system it enforces. Thus, in ancient Greek society, for example (the "cradle of our democracy," as I was taught in school -- and how fitting it actually is!), it was not only the case that the dominate class, the slaveowners (for whom, in reality, this democracy existed) considered slavery -- for others, the "inferior," the conquered peoples, etc. -- to be fully in accord with human nature -- and with divine providence as well -- but this was also the dominate view in such societies as a whole, exercising a strong influence even upon the slaves themselves -- who, if they generally did not accept the idea that slavery was just, nevertheless were strongly influenced, and intimidated, by the view that it was inevitable, because of the will and power of their "superiors" on earth and/or in heaven -- generally, both.

This is not to deny, of course, that the slaves nonetheless repeatedly rebelled against their oppression and that, in the course of and as an indispensable part of doing so, they took up as a powerful weapon ideas which not only condemned slavery as unjust but challenged the notion that it -- or at least the enslavement of those rebelling -- was inevitable. But, for all that, the institution of slavery -- and with it the idea that it was in accordance with "human nature" (and divine will) -- was not eliminated (as it has been today, in most parts of the world) until the material conditions for this developed. And, in general, any old society, no matter how much it causes suffering of the masses of people, will not be swept away until changes in society, and in particular in the productive forces it has developed and uses -- the tools, instruments, machinery, etc. and the knowledge and skills required to utilize them (which, of course, are developed by and reside in people), together with the laboring population itself -- make necessary certain changes in the economic relations people enter into in society.

 

cuba would be a paradise, if capitalist america didnt have every fucking embargo they can on em. they have the highest literacy rate, a top notch comp for every kid in school....and the only reason people leave is because they cant afford it because of US embargos.

 

Tor you finally got logged outa mike's sn. How'd you do it?

 

Communism works great on paper, it's just the people that fuck it up.

 

"communism doesnt work" is the phrase that people are supposed to say when they think about communism... but the truth is it has never really been tried except by countries who distorted communist priniciples to fuel their own agenda... in cuba they are having a wonderful time, and theyd be the shizt if they could end some problems they got and the embargo on them..

an how do we define who is ahippy? What makes one a hippy? If your a communist, how does that stop you from being a hippy? I thought hippies were all about communism... sharing... love... equality... the hipforums even have a communal living forum...

Yea im a communist too... do you have aim andrei? Maybe we can chat..? I like to keep in contact with people that are politically aligned with me.... for the revolution?
Perhaps.


There isnt enough argument to ever keep me from communism, because people all use the same 3 excuses... ive yet to see any real argument against it besides (past bad things countries who claimed they were communist did), (communism is good on paper, but it doesnt work in real life), and (communism lacks incentive)

all of which are lies

 

explain why these things are lies?
I support revolution; without the use of violence, diplomatitive(spelling?) revolution(I know, I know, Che's in my signature but that's just 'cause he's a symbol of revolution. I couldn't say I support the violence he used, though.) However, I don't fully agree with communism, 'cause it's got holes in it, all people will never give up religion, for example, so it's kind of dream to think about such things happening, and people know Stalin(who wasn't communist in my opinion) nowadays and so they don't even check out communism, so it's hard to say that it's ever going to be back.
Nothing's impossible, though.
Love,
Borut
P.S.:Andrei, from a Slavic country, ehh? Just saw your reply on some forum, and it sounds like names around here; Andrej...and Kunec/Kutznets, that's a rabbit in our language, probably it's the same in other slavic languages.

 

Well... communism is an economical philosophy... everyone doesnt have to be without religion... certain people had dreams of getting rid of religion in their country, and that was a false dream... but communism does not say anything about forcing everyone into atheism... the communist party of america, especially, does not promote forcing religion/nonreligion on anyone...
We want democracy, and we want communism... it is not impossible to have both.

the first common argument is flawed because those countries were not really communist ones... in fact china has capitalism in its major cities... the economy is not set as communist teachings uphold... the government is the new ruling class, instead of everyone really being equal....

and besides what happens in war is not a reflection of the economic system... but the political system and foreign policy issues

the second common argument is false because we cannot put to fault the entire economic system because of some political issues that were happening in the country at the time... there has never been a communist country that was not attacked by the capitalist war machine at some point

the third is false because communism is incentive in itself... we would all be better off, living with higher per capita, more produce & things like that... our incentive to working and research development would be to keep up with the world, and when we all work harder to produce more things, they all become distributed equally amongst us, so we do actually see benefits from working harder in society.

 

i think communism is good, im not very political butn i think it is a better idea than capitolism. The communist idea is distorted by the media, and by communist leader own greed. to solve this we should put a robot in charge

 

Hah!

All I need to say is look at North Korea.

 

Marge, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory."

 

Boy, I don't know. I did alot of research into several different political systems when I was a teenager. You know, trying to find a peer group that thought the same way about society as I did. However, I've always been a cynic so I also researched the opposition to all of these socio/economic/political movements. Never did find a "cause" that I felt comfortable dedicating myself to. Too much dogma and hypocricy. Anyways, communism...

Yes and no. As an economic system, it does have a couple flaws as it is written. Anyone who has ever had a job knows that some people work harder than others. There will always be the people who are interested in being productive with their time and those who would rather have it easy. Unfortunately, communism doesn't address this.
There is also the matter of accumulation of goods. Yes, greed is a matter of human nature. Don't argue against this, you will just look like a dogmatic fool. To make this illegal or difficult plants the seeds for corruption of the system. 'Cause surely people will try anyways and if it is illegal, you just created an entire culture interested in subverting your "perfect" economy.

As a political/social system, well that is just uneducated brainwashed stupidity. Communism never was intended to replace democracy or religion. Everybody who sites Russia and China as examples of communism are simply ignorant of what communism is. This is due mainly to Western propoganda. Russia and China are both examples of Totalitarianism using "communism" to control their populations. Now, Cuba is in fact a good example of communism but it still mates communism with an authoritarian government which was never the intent. Communism most naturally and logically should be mated with Democracy. You know, "power to the people."

So, do I have a conclusion that I'm leading you all to? Sorta'. I think if communism offered equal reward for everyones effort (ie, work harder, get more), fostered entreprenurial efforts (small business start-up and ownership), and was coupled with a benign government that wasn't trying to oppress its population then maybe it would work.

Anyways, this post is long enough. Just my two cents. Feel free to give me your feedback or flame me if you think I'm full of it ;-)

 

communism is just a red herring.

 

so does lenin and stalin, as well as the STALINIZATION followers

PEACE and LOVE