Political Crossfire Forums

[anselfir]

considering the various effects of a communist impulse, i'd say teh soviet union was based on that idea.

[cap'n queasy]

Punkerslut wrote: [Bible]Monkey wrote: Okay, okay, you'd already convinced me. Is any of the stuff you're sending me fragile? Put some bubble wrap in the box before you ship it to me.

Wow, that's an amazing debate technique: redefine the position of your opponent. Oh, no, wait, it's called a strawman.

I didn't call for the equalization of everyone's personal individual property. Communism is about the abolition of private property, which translates to abolishing the right to personally own capital, that is, the productive forces of an economy (factories, farms, mines, etc., since such property would be collectively owned and operated). Yeah, equalizing everyone's personal possessions. I've never known a single Communist or Socialist organization that sought that end. Do you?

Pffft. Talk about a strawman argument. You simply redefine someone's property as not their property.

You're right about one thing, Socialization is not about equalization of property at all, it's for the outright theft of it by the State.

You're saying I shouldn't be able own my own business. Or invest my savings.

Screw that.

[The Redcoat]

Pure communism will evolve naturally anyway...

Do all you really believe that this techno-consumerist age in which we live in will last forever? =\

[johnson]

Gremlin wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Statist capitalist or Communist, they will still get shot if they infridge on my rights.

:tu:

Your government infringes on your rights everyday big shot, and you just sit behind a computer spouting threats so have another twinkie.

And all this crap about investing and controlling one's destiny. HAH, who makes the rules kids? Your father? Your mamma?

If you think you are not being controlled by the government, kept in check by an economic system that ensures social complancency, the jokes on you and your delusion of grandeur.

For example, what do you think if interest rates controlled arbitrarily by the "central bank"? Its the government's most transparent version of communism, however there are hundreds of thousands of less pronounced laws and legal clauses that make your so called property freedom a rather questionable affair.

Property taxes? Bingo. IRS being directly controlled by feds? Thank-you. A conspiracy charge on crimes that themselves do not render convictions? Why, isn't american style freedom grand?

And thats not even touching post 9/11 issues!

So when I read right wing gun toting morons talking about protecting their rights with their weenie little weapons, the only truth that rings true is that of the stereotype that many ring wing gun toting americans are actually morons. However, bless their big hearts!

[Punkerslut]

oneofthem wrote: considering the various effects of a communist impulse, i'd say teh soviet union was based on that idea.

The ideal of Communism was to establish the rule of the people in matters of the economy. Not only did the Soviet government abolish the rule of the people of economics, but it abolished rule of the people in every other social and political sphere! It was not Communist.

[BobbyO]

Quote: [quote="Punkerslut"]It is a popular misconception that Soviet Russia and Red China are, or were, Communist nations. On the contrary, they were both Statist Capitalism.

Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, wrote, "In all civilised countries, democracy has as its necessary consequence the political rule of the proletariat, and the political rule of the proletariat is the first condition for all communist measures. As long as democracy has not been achieved, thus long do Communists and democrats fight side by side, thus long are the interests of the democrats at the same time those of the Communists." [Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung No. 80, October 7, 1847.]

And Karl Marx wrote: "Man does not exist because of the law but rather the law exists for the good of man. Democracy is human existence, while in the other political forms man has only legal existence. That is the fundamental difference of democracy." [Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right Karl Marx, 1843, Part 2, section C.]

Marx believed that the proleteriat made up the majority of any given community. In a democracy thus, the proleteriat would rule and thus be able to dictate to the rest of society.
The USSR and Red China developed exactly along Marx's lines. The proleteriat dictated to the rest of society.

[EugenicHegemony]

johnson wrote: Gremlin wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Statist capitalist or Communist, they will still get shot if they infridge on my rights.

:tu:

Your government infringes on your rights everyday big shot, and you just sit behind a computer spouting threats so have another twinkie.

And all this crap about investing and controlling one's destiny. HAH, who makes the rules kids? Your father? Your mamma?

If you think you are not being controlled by the government, kept in check by an economic system that ensures social complancency, the jokes on you and your delusion of grandeur.

For example, what do you think if interest rates controlled arbitrarily by the "central bank"? Its the government's most transparent version of communism, however there are hundreds of thousands of less pronounced laws and legal clauses that make your so called property freedom a rather questionable affair.

Property taxes? Bingo. IRS being directly controlled by feds? Thank-you. A conspiracy charge on crimes that themselves do not render convictions? Why, isn't american style freedom grand?

And thats not even touching post 9/11 issues!

So when I read right wing gun toting morons talking about protecting their rights with their weenie little weapons, the only truth that rings true is that of the stereotype that many ring wing gun toting americans are actually morons. However, bless their big hearts! :clap: Damn it's good to hear the truth spoken!

[BobbyO]

Quote: That's Leninism-Maoism, and only idiots who don't learn would make the same mistakes as those allegedly "communist" leaders. Yes, of course the capitalist class never wants to concede anything to the working class. The best way to do this is completely democratically. Otherwise, you get duplicates of Stalin and Lenin.

Well, HOW do you do it "completely democratically?" If you don't follow the scenario presented, how do socialists deal with not only the enemies of socialism (who presumably would have the democratic right to block the development of socialism), but also those socialist competitors (like the Lenninist-Maoists) who seek to develop socialism in different ways?

[Punkerslut]

BobbyO wrote: Well, HOW do you do it "completely democratically?" If you don't follow the scenario presented, how do socialists deal with not only the enemies of socialism (who presumably would have the democratic right to block the development of socialism), but also those socialist competitors (like the Lenninist-Maoists) who seek to develop socialism in different ways?

Marx and Engels were the authors of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Both of them, for decades, struggled to achieve the rights of the working class through the partisan politics system of Republicanism. Though that way is horrendously ineffective, it's much less bloody and oppressive than the methods of Stalinists, Trotskyists, and Leninists. Mikhaul Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Piere-Joseph Proudhon offer many solutions to organizing a democratic Communism. One solution is Anarcho-Syndicalism, where the capital of the economy is controlled, owned, and operated by unions, which are democratically controlled.

[BobbyO]

Quote: Marx and Engels were the authors of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Both of them, for decades, struggled to achieve the rights of the working class through the partisan politics system of Republicanism. Though that way is horrendously ineffective, it's much less bloody and oppressive than the methods of Stalinists, Trotskyists, and Leninists. Mikhaul Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, and Piere-Joseph Proudhon offer many solutions to organizing a democratic Communism. One solution is Anarcho-Syndicalism, where the capital of the economy is controlled, owned, and operated by unions, which are democratically controlled. [/quote]

That is NOT a solution. Its simply a declaration of the way things should be. HOW do the unions gain ownership? How do they keep ownership?
And how much "less bloody" and "less oppressive?"

[eynon]

(my 2 cents)

I believe true Communism is a valid system that could work.......I also believe in fairies and the Loche Ness Monster.........IT'S A POLITICAL FAIRY TALE PEOPLE! The reason Communism turned into the bloodiet political philosohpy in history is because it's a f***ing fantasy that people tried to make a reality. I could make a more vaible form of governace if I renamed Washington DC Rivendale and started calling myself Ellron!


:evil:

[Shiva]

There have been several cases - past and present - in which the means of production have been in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the state or the elite.

Many factories were actually taken over and run by the workers immediately after the "Great" October Revolution in the Soviet Union because they were under the mistaken impression that the Bolsheviks were heralding in a new age of communism. The Bolsheviks crushed those dangerous ideas of communism rather brutally and replaced the worker's factory soviets with "managers" and "company directors". As the Who sang in Won't Get Fooled Again...

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

And it was pretty much the same throughout the rest of Soviet history; or Chinese history for that matter. Any time there was a push towards democracy at any level (state or work place), the Party would let the people know in no uncertain terms that the Party elites wanted nothing to do with Marxism or Communism.

During the Spanish Civil War, anarchists, socialists and some communists took over the means of production democratic-style. They managed to increase productivity AND introduce consumer goods that the peasants could never have dreamed of getting even one year before. Those were short-lived due to both the fascist Franco AND the Soviet fear of workers actually owning the means of production. They were stabbed in the back by the Soviet-backed communists and then the critically wounded anti-Fascist front was beat by Franco's forces.

Today in Argentina can be found the parecons (participatory economics). When Argentina's economy collapsed after having followed all of the instructions given by the West, many, many factories closed and millions of workers were left with no jobs, source of income or government support (the West pressured Argentina to drastically cut social spending). What were the workers to do? To paraphrase George W. Bush, how were people supposed to put food on their families?

Many workers broke the locks on the factories and went back to work. There were many methods of worker ownership, but the ones that worked best, were most productive and that paid workers most were those that were run democratically. Soviet-style non-communist methods failed in case after case.

For more information on parecons, you can go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon

[Kindred]

Halitosis Crunch wrote: Punkerslut wrote:
Very true. When the state mixes with the interests of any group, whether religion, capitalism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the result can be tragic. The most effective way to establish Socialism is through completely Democratic and peaceful means. That can be done with the philosophy of Syndicalism, or any other collectivist organization structure.
The thing about a truly free market is that it doesn't deny anyone the right to get together voluntarily. If communists make communes or if workers collectively buy and run a factory, these things are fine from the anarcho-capitalist view point, so long as they remain voluntary.

Would you deny a person the ability to freely accumulate capital and then invest in a business which they solely own if it is through non-violent means? Why is the private ownership of a business bad?

The problem I have with anarcho-syndicalism is that it doesn't allow a free market, yet a free market allows anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarcho-syndicalism does allow for a free market, look at Spain 36-39 or the Kronstadt. Syndicates sprung up all over the place, and freely competed with the private sector. Many of them refused to trade with the private sector, as they were largely self-sufficient and/or preferred to trade with other syndicates, but that is not ‘disallowing a free market’, it’s simply choosing not to participate in one which is their own prerogative.

[Kindred]

Shiva wrote: There have been several cases - past and present - in which the means of production have been in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of the state or the elite.

Many factories were actually taken over and run by the workers immediately after the "Great" October Revolution in the Soviet Union because they were under the mistaken impression that the Bolsheviks were heralding in a new age of communism. The Bolsheviks crushed those dangerous ideas of communism rather brutally and replaced the worker's factory soviets with "managers" and "company directors". As the Who sang in Won't Get Fooled Again...

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

And it was pretty much the same throughout the rest of Soviet history; or Chinese history for that matter. Any time there was a push towards democracy at any level (state or work place), the Party would let the people know in no uncertain terms that the Party elites wanted nothing to do with Marxism or Communism.

During the Spanish Civil War, anarchists, socialists and some communists took over the means of production democratic-style. They managed to increase productivity AND introduce consumer goods that the peasants could never have dreamed of getting even one year before. Those were short-lived due to both the fascist Franco AND the Soviet fear of workers actually owning the means of production. They were stabbed in the back by the Soviet-backed communists and then the critically wounded anti-Fascist front was beat by Franco's forces.

Today in Argentina can be found the parecons (participatory economics). When Argentina's economy collapsed after having followed all of the instructions given by the West, many, many factories closed and millions of workers were left with no jobs, source of income or government support (the West pressured Argentina to drastically cut social spending). What were the workers to do? To paraphrase George W. Bush, how were people supposed to put food on their families?

Many workers broke the locks on the factories and went back to work. There were many methods of worker ownership, but the ones that worked best, were most productive and that paid workers most were those that were run democratically. Soviet-style non-communist methods failed in case after case.

For more information on parecons, you can go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon

Excactly.

[Alula]

Now I see the difference your state would have the authority say if you were
not working or could not obtain a job to place you in a job that would suit your needs or your level of needs based on the law. Because of that law
you being in a communist society would not have a choice. The Law rules you. In this Country it is the opposite. You have your own choice of job
and your own amount of time to obtain that position without breaking the law.
I see the difference now between Democracy and communism. Thank you.

[Punkerslut]

[quote="BobbyO"] Quote: Marx believed that the proleteriat made up the majority of any given community. In a democracy thus, the proleteriat would rule and thus be able to dictate to the rest of society.
The USSR and Red China developed exactly along Marx's lines. The proleteriat dictated to the rest of society.

Are you sure about that? In October of 1917, Lenin established the Constituent Assembly, to be elected by the people. Less than a third of the votes went to the Bolshevik Party, while most votes went to the Revolutionary Socialists. Having lost power in election, he took power away from the working class. In Marx's society, the Proletariat control society, not some powerhungry dictator who hijacked the revolution from the working class.

[anselfir]

Punkerslut wrote: oneofthem wrote: considering the various effects of a communist impulse, i'd say teh soviet union was based on that idea.

The ideal of Communism was to establish the rule of the people in matters of the economy. Not only did the Soviet government abolish the rule of the people of economics, but it abolished rule of the people in every other social and political sphere! It was not Communist. it was done under the communist impulse, which is one of destruction of the higher classes. Once this was done, they didn't know what to do next.

[BobbyO]

Quote: Are you sure about that? In October of 1917, Lenin established the Constituent Assembly, to be elected by the people. Less than a third of the votes went to the Bolshevik Party, while most votes went to the Revolutionary Socialists. Having lost power in election, he took power away from the working class. In Marx's society, the Proletariat control society, not some powerhungry dictator who hijacked the revolution from the working class. [/quote]

Kerensky set up the Constituent assemply. And indeed, the Bolsheviks had a minority, and Lenin overturned it.

The problem which Lenin recognised is that there are numerous ideas about how to build socialism. Moreover, there are always those enemies of socialism, those folks who believe socialism to be wrong, and wish it stopped.

Bottom line remains: To build socialism, one has to build socialism. Can't have a situation where each elections brings in different people who move things about, reorganise this, add that, strip the other thing. Or starts tearing the whole project down.

Socialists always seem to start their conception of socialism when it already exists, rather than what needs to be done to get that point, and then what impact those steps would have on the finished product.

[Punkerslut]

BobbyO wrote: Kerensky set up the Constituent assemply. And indeed, the Bolsheviks had a minority, and Lenin overturned it.

The problem which Lenin recognised is that there are numerous ideas about how to build socialism. Moreover, there are always those enemies of socialism, those folks who believe socialism to be wrong, and wish it stopped.

Bottom line remains: To build socialism, one has to build socialism. Can't have a situation where each elections brings in different people who move things about, reorganise this, add that, strip the other thing. Or starts tearing the whole project down.

Socialists always seem to start their conception of socialism when it already exists, rather than what needs to be done to get that point, and then what impact those steps would have on the finished product.

Yes, of course that is the base defense that any government is going to offer on behalf of a dictatorship: to have a constantly changing figurehead would make the country weak and therefore potentially victim to some unbelievably great, evil superpower, either from within or from without. I don't see how Soviet Russia could be HINDERED from Socialism, when many of the people who opposed the Bolshevik Party were (1) Socialists, and (2) pushing for Democratic rule of the people so that it was for and by them, or seeking autonomy of the working class Russians in matters of economy and politics. The Makhno-ist revolutionaries, the insurgence at Kronstadt, the constant breakouts of insurgencies all over Russia, all of these are the result of Socialists attempting to grant power to the working class, and then being thwarted by the enormous and unstoppable Soviet military. There was nothing Socialist or Communist about Lenin, Castro, or Mao. They were all politician scumbags speaking to people's interests to rouse them into supporters.

[FlyingLiberal]

Soviet Russia from what I've read where Authoritarian Communists in other words "Communist fascist"
the're are different forms of extreme Left wings just like there are different forms of extreme right wings. the Communism that has never been done before on this planet is Left wing libertarian, it's Communism with a very laissez Fair government.