Communism Is A Disease

Commies are pawns. They don't even realize it. They are the most ignorant amongst the most ignorant.

Commie scumbags support the abolition of private property rights.

They support mandatory indoctrination/brainwashing of all children via state education.

They support the abolition of all religion.

They support the abolition of free speech (unless it's pro-communist).

They support the total destruction of the US Constitution, kind of like their Skull & Bones hero, George W. Bush.

Brainwashed commies don't even realize that this is fascism, since the sick fucks are FORCING people to conform to their fascist belief system. Many don't, and this is why Communism can be blamed for the deaths of millions upon millions of innocent people, who dared to stand up against its tyranny.

Commies are a minority in this country, compared to the Bush-worshipping neocons, who are every bit as bad. But since the so-called far Left is dominated by subversive communist/socialist dupes that hate the US Bill of Rights and Constitution, and hate freedom of speech, I feel there is no real opposition to the tyranny we currently face in this world, other than for the people who don't conform to labels and see the truth for what it really is.

 

Some are, but those that truly understand Marx and Engels are not, as if you understand their work, you would understand leaders are for sheep and Marx and Engels was talking about the people as a whole to gain control from the leaders and that society be run by the people.

It is those that are not either Anarchist or Marxist that are pawns, fighing for a master to rule over them, true Marxist and Anarchist fights for "all the power to the people".

 

An opinion. Not a fact.

Communists support ending exploitation by the rich. The rich exploit the people through the means of production (factories, etc). We want to take them from the upper class, and make the means of production now under their control, public.

That doesn't mean we don't support a person's right to own a home, a car, etc.

Inconsistant.

We are for a stateless, classless society. In a communsit society, there will be no state. Thus, no "state education".

Partly.

We believe religion is a private matter, and that religion should not be forced upon others.

False.



Freedom of speech is a very important tool in educating the people in Marxism.

"If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticized, because we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who, may point out our shortcomings. If he is right, we will correct them. If what he proposes will benefit the people, we will act upon it." - Mao Zedong

"As for criticism, do it in good time; don't get into the habit of criticizing only after the event. " - Mao Zedong

"The Communist Party does not fear criticism because we are Marxists, the truth is on our side, and the basic masses, the workers and peasants, are on our side. " - Mao Zedong

"Taught by mistakes and setbacks, we have become wiser and handle our affairs better. It is hard for any political party or person to avoid mistakes, but we should make as few as possible. Once a mistake is made, we should correct it, and the more quickly and thoroughly the better. " - Mao Zedong

Where do you get these silly ideas from?

I don't think that has ever been an issue. It's a non-issue.

Our focus goes far beyond the US.

False.

Fascism is the last desperate defense of the capitalist class. We are against fascism.

Do you know what corporatism is?

Why don't you give us a definition of fascism? Without agreeing on what is what, then there is no point in communicating. To you fascism might mean strawberries, while to me, it might mean something very different.

So give us a definition of fascism.

I don't know which country you are talking about. People on this forum are from different parts of the world, you know. And I bet there are things happening outside your country.

A humble suggestion:
Read some marxist litterature before you actually try to criticize marxism.

 

I have read Marx. I also know that he was hired by the central banks to promote his Communist Manifesto. Marx was also a student of Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Bavarian Illuminati, whose philosohpy was about subverting the masses to bring about global domination.

 

Then you would know that Marx in 1879 said "the emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself, we cannot therefore cooperate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philosophical leaders.”

Then in 1895 Engels said “The time is past for revolutions carried through by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses. When it gets to be a matter of the complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they must act. But so the masses may understand what is to be done, long and persistent work is required.”

 

i think communism only works in small groups, for now, where everybody is a willing participant (communes for example) the idea is that history is divided into sections... first there was the feudal system, then capitalism, and then will come communism, when the workers realize how things could be run better (everybody participating and everybody getting an equal share)

also, in russia at least, "communism" started off as just a changing of powers from the tsars to the bolsheviks.. it wasn't communism as marx described it to be, because it was forced, and all the power was still held in a very small group.

 

Pressed_Rat, could you back up that claim with some trustworthy sources?

Marx and Engels weren't exactly living fancy. In many periods of their lives, they lived in extreme poverty. According to my knowledge, Engels had to work in order to ensure they had an income, while Marx wrote.

 

The 'experience' of Maoist Communism in China during the years 1950-1975 teaches us a lot.

From 'The Great Leap Forward' where 'steel' was smelted in home-made iron-ore stone furnaces at the bottom of people's gardens-to 'The Cultural Revolution' where people were put on 'show trials' & humiliated for their decadence of owning 'western imperialist watches'.
Mao wanted to spread Communism throughout the whole of south-east asia.He was a protagonist for marxist-leninist expansionism & it led to the 'Domino Theory' which lead tragically to: The Korean War & The Vietnam War,& the invasion of Cambodia.

Yes,Mao fed a starving people initially;but his own brand of communism meant that the minds had to be in a permanent "state of revolution".
'Brain-washing' began in the Korean war.Brain-washing is what Communism is all about.

See the 1956 movie: 'The Invasion Of the Body Snatchers' .

President Reagan put an end to the expansion of Soviet Communism.
Nixon had a 'detente' meeting with Chairman Mao.

I am not a crusading anti-communist. As I said , initially , Communism was a positive experience for China & Cuba ,in the 1950s.Hungry people were fed.

It is simply that History
does not present a sympathetic case to the cause of communist doctrines & practice.

 

There is no such thing as "Maoist Communism".

The only ideology Mao upheld was Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is a theory, philosophy and ideology. Communism is a social system, like socialism, capitalism, feudalism, etc.

China was socialist, not communist under Mao.

There is no such thing as "Soviet Communism", either. Not in the Marxist sense, at least.


The Soviet Union was never, nor claimed to be communist. The USSR was socialist, thus: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The USSR only claimed to be socialist. It hadn't reached communism yet.

The revolution in Cuba started in 1956. The revolutionary armed forces liberated Cuba in 1959, not in the early 1950's.

However, I do agree with you, to some extent. The Great Leap Forward was far from perfect.

Of course.

It is the victor who writes history. Why would the capitalist nations write anything sympathetic regarding the attempts of socialism in the Third World?



Let's take an historic example.

If Hitler had won WW2, he would probably be praised today. A lot of mainstream people would have seen the Holocaust as something neccesary, just like many Americans see the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "neccesary". The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be one of the hardest proofs that the US had to be destroyed. Remember that it was France and England who started the war against Germany, not vica versa. Germany would have been praised for their excellence in the battlefield, and from saving the Aryan race. If Germany had won the war, and would eradicate the Soviet Union, then they would be the the guarding angel who saved the world from the jewish communism.


But the allies won, and that is why Hitler is portrayed as evil, and the allies as the good. The victor writes history. It's a golden rule.

 

What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003 by RedStar2000​

Communism is a hypothetical social order in which there are no classes and consequently no state as an organ of class rule.

It is postulated that such a society will have little in the way of public authorities or "government" and that whatever is found to be useful will be "ultra-democratic" and rely heavily on internet referendums (direct democracy). These public authorities will almost exclusively be concerned with the large-scale co-ordination of production and distribution of goods and services, and most of their "decisions" are likely to be suggestive rather than compulsive.

There will be no formal "nation states" in a communist world, though many of the names may persist as geographic designations.

There will be no production of "commodities" -- goods and services produced for sale -- instead goods and services will be produced for use -- either by the producers themselves or freely given to those who will make good use of them.

There will be no "currency" as such; no money...though old currency units may be used for record-keeping purposes, they will have no independent utility.

Individual compensation will vary little, and that according to "need"...the ability to actually use what is appropriated from the public total.

People will have the freedom to gravitate to the "work" that they find most intrinsically rewarding for its own sake. But there will be considerable informal pressure to "work" at something useful. The stereotypical "lazy bum" will be an object of scorn and/or pity. Work that is so "bad" that no one wishes to do it will either be automated, shared out in some collective fashion so that no one has to do very much of it, or simply dispensed with altogether.

The social life of a communist society will be extraordinally libertarian; very few of the taboos and and even fewer of the regulations that presently exist will still survive. Religion, if it survives at all, will be in the nature of a hobby, without the power to influence people's lives in any significant way.

Prestige in a communist society will come from competence and reliability...the highest respect will go to those who've demonstrated their ability to perform especially useful work that many will want to emulate.

The most utterly detested crime in communist society will be the attempt to "hire" wage-labor for the purpose of producing a "commodity". This will be regarded in the same way that we currently regard human sacrifice or chattel slavery...as an unspeakable horror and an attempt to "bring back" an old and disgustingly inhumane social order, namely capitalism.

Thus, the hypothetical features of a communist society, as extrapolated from the ideas of Marx and Engels.

Since such a social order has never existed for any significant period of time, we presently have no way of "knowing" if it will actually "work". More importantly, it is really unknown what kinds of things must be done and must be avoided to successfully manage the transition from capitalism to communism...although there are many theories about this. It seems likely that there will be several centuries of "trial and error" before the human species manages this transition successfully.


========================================

quote:

I think, as Marxists, the distant future is not our concern.
​

Well, yes and no.

It's not our concern insofar as we should devote enormous amounts of time and energy trying to formulate the details of a social order that few or none of us is likely to live long enough to see.

But considered as a "navigational aide", it is of concern to us. It's a check on where we are going and what we are doing to get there.

The old German Social Democracy more or less openly stated that "the movement is everything and the goal is nothing"...a stance which lost them both their original goal and their movement as well.

The balance between our immediate goals (not reforms, but real subversion of and damage to the existing system) and our long-range goal of communism can be fruitfully debated and discussed.

But without the serious and thoughtful goal of a classless society, what could we hope to gain through our efforts, at best, but the overthrow of an existing ruling class and its replacement by a new ruling class?

And who needs that?
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RedGreenLeft on June 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

It also shows how our society is evolving and that Communism is what society will evolve into.

Is this right?
​

Yes, that's a reasonable way to summarize the matter, with the understanding that "evolve" is a very long term way to look at what in the short run might be a whole series of revolutions.

The "evolution" from feudalism to capitalism took centuries and involved a whole series of revolutions and counter-revolutions as well as periods of slow change.

Also be cautious with the phrase "will evolve". To someone who has studied the matter a bit, to say that there "will" someday be communism on a global scale seems like a simple and obvious conclusion from what has happened in history thus far; but to people unfamiliar with the evidence, such a statement has all the "appeal" of the bland assertion that "Jesus will return."

Technically speaking, we really can't say there "will" be a global communist society until there actually is one...and the Marxist hypothesis is confirmed by direct and overwhelming evidence.

But if you ask me, it looks like a very good bet.
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 21, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------

If you actually do run into a lot of people who want to talk about Stalin...I suppose then that you have to talk about Stalin.

On those rare occasions when it happens to me, I patiently explain that Russia was a primitive and in some areas barbaric country in 1917...and such countries tend very strongly to produce barbaric rulers, regardless of what color flags they wrap themselves in.

That was then, this is now. Stalin has no relevance to the 21st century; he's dead and will be remembered, if at all, as a harsh Russian nationalist who defeated the Germans, kind of a "second edition" of Peter "the Great".

The shadow of Lenin is much longer...and gloomier. Most of the people who consider themselves "left" revolutionaries of one sort or another still think the idea of a "vanguard party" is "the way to go", inspite of massive evidence to the contrary.

I find myself arguing with those people all the time.

Getting out from under the shadow of Lenin once and for all is an absolute necessity if we are to make progress.

And it is very tough going, indeed.
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 22, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------

quote:

...then maybe you should stop speaking with all your academic friends and get out on the streets.
​

Would you believe that I don't know a single person in academia? It's true.

quote:

...but that doesn't mean he is not significant in the eyes of the workers around the world when it comes to communism. In fact children learn in school that Stalin was a communist, and if you look in school books and indeed dictionaries they all apply Stalin to their definitions of communism.
​

Well, sure. The stink lingers a while even after the corpse has been buried. But do we help matters any with lengthy and arcane excursions into the details of the Stalin era? Does it do us any good to repeat endlessly and in tedious detail "Stalin Bad! Us Good!"

Granted that you do run into someone now and then who is really interested in the details and there are many sources on the net where they can be found, I just can't believe most people have time for that old crap.

Even in America, where anti-communist propaganda is more ubiquitous than anywhere else on earth (except possibly Vatican City), I can't recall being queried about Stalin by an ordinary person even once. (That doesn't mean it didn't happen...just that it was so rare that I can't remember a specific occasion.)

The people who generally want to talk about Stalin are right-wingers and left-wingers (especially Trotskyists, of course)...or so it has been my experience.

Speaking personally, my advice is never argue with right-wingers about anything unless you outnumber them three to one or better...they're not interested in argument, they're looking to start a brawl.

With other lefties, it depends on where they're coming from; I know enough to poke gaping holes in all of the "official" versions, but I usually end up asking them why they are interested in this at all...and then try to give as balanced and fair analysis as I can.

If an ordinary person without a left background asked me about Stalin today, I think I would answer "What an odd question. Are you interested in Russian history?"
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on June 23, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------
==========================================


http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&

 

What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003 by RedStar2000
​

This is a far more complicated matter than defining communism...because the word has been used by so many different groups and individuals to mean so many different things. I will attempt to define the word coherently, and you shall judge whether what I have to say "makes sense"...or not.

Socialism is a form of class society in which all or at least all of the important means of production are owned and managed by a "central public authority" or state. The people that control the state make up the "ruling class" of such a society.

In such a society, goods and services may be produced for use (freely distributed to the population) or as commodities for sale in a market. Most if not all labor is wage-labor, and surplus-value may or may not be extracted from workers. That's another way of saying that state-owned enterprises may be operated to generate a "profit" or not. The circulation and use of currency (money) prevails. Differences in standards-of-living are normally far less than that which prevails under capitalism...but are still significant.

So far, so good, I trust. Now it gets tricky.

The "communist" regimes of the 20th century actually never claimed to be anything but "socialist". Their argument was that "socialism" was "necessary" as a "transitional stage" to communism.

They further claimed that the working class "was" the ruling class in their countries...even though it was self-evident that ordinary workers had little or no input into any important decisions but were rather expected to obey their leaders.

This suggests that "socialism", far from being a "transitional stage to communism", is rather a method by which an old ruling class (usually a landed aristocracy with a small and weak "colonial" bourgeoisie) can be overthrown and replaced with a more vigorous native ruling class...that over time becomes openly capitalist.

At least, this is what we have seen happen in the USSR, China, eastern Europe, and even now in Vietnam.

Why then the confusion? Why do people think that "socialism" is "progressive", a stage on the way to communism?

One reason, of course, is that Lenin and all his followers (Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc.) said so...and their prestige in the 20th century made disagreement difficult and rarely heard in public.

Another part of the difficulty must be attributed to a certain terminological "laxness" on the part of Marx and Engels in their old age. Both were inclined to give shoulder-shrugging approval to the decision of the early "Marxist" parties in Europe to use the less "inflammatory" term "socialism" instead of the more "dangerous" word "communism" in the attempt to win votes for those parties.

On a few occasions, they did speak out publicly against the confusion between state-owned enterprises and their own goals...but mostly, they just let it slide. Unfortunate.

One can certainly imagine a version of socialism that might be transitional to communism. What would it look like?

The state would still "own and manage" everything of importance in the economy. But the state itself would have to be "ultra-democratic"...every public official in a position of authority subject to more or less "instant" recall. Central economic plans would have to be subject to frequent referendums. Many independent groups of workers would have to have access to the mass media and criticism of the central authority would have to be encouraged.

There would have to be a more or less conscious plan to gradually reduce the power of the central public authority and the privileges of the political elite...it would not be sufficient to just sit back and wait for those things to happen spontaneously.

In particular, the "police powers" of the central public authority would have to be carefully overseen by large collectives of workers...we have far too much sad evidence from the 20th century about what happens when "the state secret police" get out of hand.

The production of commodities would have to be phased out in a more or less deliberate fashion and the production of goods and services for use phased in.

People defend this idea of a "transition stage" (different from now but not "too" different) on the grounds that workers who successfully overthrow the capitalist system "still" carry many capitalist ideas and habits in their heads...and are really incapable of "leaping" directly into communist society.

I am suspicious of this assumption; the tiny number of brief examples that we have had thus far in history suggest rather that class-conscious workers show a marked ability to innovate communist practices immediately following their revolution.

So the problem that faces communists and those who want to be communists is: do we go for a formal "transitional stage" called "socialism" or do we press for communism from day one after the revolution?

The latter seems like the way to go, in my opinion. But I have to confess that I could be wrong.

In any event, any "version" of "socialism" that fails to meet the criteria I outlined above is just a waste of time and not worth fighting for at all.



More:




http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&

 

Commies are idiots. That's all.

 

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102845

 

That's a brilliant statement. You should be nominated for the Nobel prize for that one.

Marxists are idiots...


Picasso was a member of the communist party, Oppenheimer was a supporter of communist ideas, Einstein was an anti-capitalist and radical leftist.
George Orwell was a Trotskyist and fought in the Spanish Civil War under the 'Workers Party of Marxist Unification'.


Are these people... Idiots?

Cuba, a third world country, is a leading nation in biotechnology.


Generalizations are often made by people who are prejudical and dogmatic.


And how many Communists do you know, other than me?

 

whole czech communist party KSÈM, that used to be KSÈ and killed a lot of people.

 

Jana's right. It is a fact. Communists are idiots.

Nazdar.

 

It's hard to debate against ignorance.



Pablo Ruiz Picasso was one of the recognized masters of 20th century art. probably most famous as the founder, along with Georges Braque, of Cubism.

Was Picasso an idiot?

J. R. R. Tolkien supported the philosophical aspect of communism. Tolkien was the person who wrote The Lord of the Rings. Was he an idiot?

Ever heard of Leo Tolstoy? He was a supporter of communism/anarchism, too.


Noam Chomsky, a famous Anarchist (they are struggling for communism, too), who has contributed in many fields, among them, psychology, linguistics, political analysis of mass media etc. Is Noam Chomsky an idiot?

Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist. He received a Nobel Prize for his work. Was Jean-Paul Satre an idiot?


The only idiot possible idiot here is yourself, because you discriminate people you do not even know. You are making a fool out of yourself. But hey, wanna-be gangsters aren't exactly known for thought prosessing?

 

The czech communist party's name is not KSÈM. As far as I know, it's KSČM.


You're supposed to know everyone in KSCM, but you can't even spell the party's name? Do you happen to know Miroslav Grebenicek? The The Czech Communist Party has 20 percent support of the population! The communists are the second strongest party in opinion polls. You're supposed to know all of them?

 

where the fuck is my mistake???? KSÈM!

 

thank you!!

btw, "nazdar", you're from Czech?