Political Crossfire Forums

[Medius]

Spitfire wrote: Just a question for you guys...

Have any of you actually read any of Karl Marx's work???

He DIDN'T want a large state. In fact, he promoted the irradication of the state through decentralisation and dissipation of ruling class power. The 'COMMUN' in Communism refers to community. Individual communities should hold the power to their own fate. Marx valued socialism from below - workers and people stopping their own exploitation, not socialism from above - the state being involved and not the workers.

Whether you are creating Karl Marx's utopia or a communist/dictatorial regime the steps are the same. I have taken for granted that most people here are talking about the communism we see in practice not the idealist communism that is always doomed to fail.

[Spitfire]

Medius wrote: Spitfire wrote: Just a question for you guys...

Have any of you actually read any of Karl Marx's work???

He DIDN'T want a large state. In fact, he promoted the irradication of the state through decentralisation and dissipation of ruling class power. The 'COMMUN' in Communism refers to community. Individual communities should hold the power to their own fate. Marx valued socialism from below - workers and people stopping their own exploitation, not socialism from above - the state being involved and not the workers.

Whether you are creating Karl Marx's utopia or a communist/dictatorial regime the steps are the same. I have taken for granted that most people here are talking about the communism we see in practice not the idealist communism that is always doomed to fail.

The first steps are the same. Marx wanted workers to take control of the state, which happened in places like the USSR and China, but the next step of the workers dismantling the state, so the state stopped existing and handing state power to individuals, was unfortunately never carried out in any nation that called themselves Communist.

I only mention this as reading through the thread it seems to me that Marx's version of Communism (socialism from below) and the type of Communism seen in nation states (socialism from above) have been used as interchangable terms. There is a big difference between the two and I wanted to point that out.

Back to the issues you are talking about. I don't feel that the US is becoming Communist. IMHO, it seems to be moving towards a more fascist totalitarian regime disguised as patriotism. Nothing above the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state. The way that GWB has used signing statements as a line-item veto is reminscent of furherprinzip within Nazism. The leader is answerable to no-one, especially law. The US dictator, sorry President, has issued caveats onto legislation meaning he is not bound by the new laws he has brought in and can't be held responsible for them. The erosion of democracy in the quest for national security is truly scary stuff!!!

[Medius]

Spitfire wrote: Medius wrote: Spitfire wrote: Just a question for you guys...

Have any of you actually read any of Karl Marx's work???

He DIDN'T want a large state. In fact, he promoted the irradication of the state through decentralisation and dissipation of ruling class power. The 'COMMUN' in Communism refers to community. Individual communities should hold the power to their own fate. Marx valued socialism from below - workers and people stopping their own exploitation, not socialism from above - the state being involved and not the workers.

Whether you are creating Karl Marx's utopia or a communist/dictatorial regime the steps are the same. I have taken for granted that most people here are talking about the communism we see in practice not the idealist communism that is always doomed to fail.

The first steps are the same. Marx wanted workers to take control of the state, which happened in places like the USSR and China, but the next step of the workers dismantling the state, so the state stopped existing and handing state power to individuals, was unfortunately never carried out in any nation that called themselves Communist.

I only mention this as reading through the thread it seems to me that Marx's version of Communism (socialism from below) and the type of Communism seen in nation states (socialism from above) have been used as interchangable terms. There is a big difference between the two and I wanted to point that out.

Back to the issues you are talking about. I don't feel that the US is becoming Communist. IMHO, it seems to be moving towards a more fascist totalitarian regime disguised as patriotism. Nothing above the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state. The way that GWB has used signing statements as a line-item veto is reminscent of furherprinzip within Nazism. The leader is answerable to no-one, especially law. The US dictator, sorry President, has issued caveats onto legislation meaning he is not bound by the new laws he has brought in and can't be held responsible for them. The erosion of democracy in the quest for national security is truly scary stuff!!!

That's the tricky bit. Russia was very similar to what you describe. Loyalty to Mother Russia was very important. I agree that people should be clear that they aren't talking about Marxist Communism, but rather the "reality" based communism. The steps listed out in the original post can lead to either.

[Spitfire]

Medius wrote: Spitfire wrote: Medius wrote: Spitfire wrote: Just a question for you guys...

Have any of you actually read any of Karl Marx's work???

He DIDN'T want a large state. In fact, he promoted the irradication of the state through decentralisation and dissipation of ruling class power. The 'COMMUN' in Communism refers to community. Individual communities should hold the power to their own fate. Marx valued socialism from below - workers and people stopping their own exploitation, not socialism from above - the state being involved and not the workers.

Whether you are creating Karl Marx's utopia or a communist/dictatorial regime the steps are the same. I have taken for granted that most people here are talking about the communism we see in practice not the idealist communism that is always doomed to fail.

The first steps are the same. Marx wanted workers to take control of the state, which happened in places like the USSR and China, but the next step of the workers dismantling the state, so the state stopped existing and handing state power to individuals, was unfortunately never carried out in any nation that called themselves Communist.

I only mention this as reading through the thread it seems to me that Marx's version of Communism (socialism from below) and the type of Communism seen in nation states (socialism from above) have been used as interchangable terms. There is a big difference between the two and I wanted to point that out.

Back to the issues you are talking about. I don't feel that the US is becoming Communist. IMHO, it seems to be moving towards a more fascist totalitarian regime disguised as patriotism. Nothing above the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state. The way that GWB has used signing statements as a line-item veto is reminscent of furherprinzip within Nazism. The leader is answerable to no-one, especially law. The US dictator, sorry President, has issued caveats onto legislation meaning he is not bound by the new laws he has brought in and can't be held responsible for them. The erosion of democracy in the quest for national security is truly scary stuff!!!

That's the tricky bit. Russia was very similar to what you describe. Loyalty to Mother Russia was very important. I agree that people should be clear that they aren't talking about Marxist Communism, but rather the "reality" based communism. The steps listed out in the original post can lead to either.

I agree. Communism as seen in nation states and fascism do resemble each other. For me, the main difference is that in the USSR, people from different religions, cultures and races were made to forsake this individualism and become a soviet. A form of united citizenship where the motherland was the primary focus of identity. Fascism sought to irradicate any religion, culture or race that it perceived as being inferior. Inclusivity Vs exclusivity. The US, through things like racial profiling and the perception of Islam, seems to me to be more leaning towards the fascist exclusivity form of dictatorship rather than a Communist inclusivity, we are all one form of dictatorship.

[Norrin Radd]

It does not matter what name you call it, socialism, fascism, or communism, once individual liberty is gone, it will be much harder to regain that liberty then it would have been to keep it.

I agree with Congressmen Larry P. McDonald on his warning of what TPTB intend...........

""The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control..."