Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

The "whatabboutery" is nothing else as the truth.
As non-English speaker, I had to search the meaning of "whatabboutery" on internet... and the definition is brutal for your argumentations.

No, its "brutal" as an indictment of your logic.

"Whattaboutery" is responding to a point that you cannot answer by raising some other issue, which is what you've done.

We're talking about "how much do you know about communism" on this thread.

I point out that, by design, Marxism implements a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that puts all power in the Party, which makes the slide to totalitarianism and tyranny all too easy. Its so intrinsic a defect of the Marxist design that you really have to struggle to find a voluntary transfer of power in a Marxist regime. Never happened in the Soviet Union, for example.

You can't answer that point-- because its obviously true. This isn't some "bug" in the system-- its the design and aspiration.

So you attempt to change the subject to some complaint about something else.

That's "whataboutery" -- and its a sure sign that you don't have evidence to defend your position.

[scoundrel]

Whataboutery is a logical fallacy which attacks the person making the argument rather than countering the argument made. When used, it suggests an inability to address the argument because it is a deflection, a diversionary tactic. Even when the "whatabout" point is true and fair, it is still a non-point in the context of a logical discussion because it is off-topic.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

I point out that, by design, Marxism implements a "dictatorship of the proletariat" that puts all power in the Party, which makes the slide to totalitarianism and tyranny all too easy. Its so intrinsic a defect of the Marxist design that you really have to struggle to find a voluntary transfer of power in a Marxist regime. Never happened in the Soviet Union, for example.

But you totally misuse the sense of this term.
"The dictatorship of the proletariat" is the transition to the destruction of the state, the destruction of leadership, the destruction of government.

Here is what I learned:

Marx et Friedrich Engels conçoivent la dictature du prolétariat comme une phase transitoire de dictature révolutionnaire, nécessaire pour abattre le pouvoir de la bourgeoisie. Sur le plan économique, elle se traduit par la suppression de la propriété privée des moyens de production, et donc par la mise en place du collectivisme économique via un processus de socialisation des biens. Selon la théorie marxiste et léniniste, la période de dictature du prolétariat, phase « inférieure » du socialisme, conduira ensuite à un processus naturel de dépérissement de l'État et au passage à une société sans classes, phase dite « supérieure » qui correspondra au communisme proprement dit.

Marx and Friedrich Engels conceive the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional phase of revolutionary dictatorship, necessary to defeat the power of the bourgeoisie. On the economic level, it involves the suppression of private ownership of the means of production, and thus the establishment of economic collectivism through a process of socialization of goods. According to Marxist and Leninist theory, the period of dictatorship of the proletariat, the "inferior" phase of socialism, will then lead to a natural process of the withering away of the state and the transition to a classless society, a so-called "superior" phase which will correspond to the communism proper.

Transitional.... not permanent.

Be careful.

If we understand correctly this ideology, only greedy and selfish people could disapprove with "the dictatorship of proletariat" that ends to a fair and classless society.

Honestly, I think, that there are other ways to reach a classeless society. In following Anarcho-Buddhism for example.
In teaching to the next generations meditation, developping compassion, kindness and altruism.

As I wrote in the past in the VEF philosophy topic, it seems to me that the Western ideologists of egalitarian societies of the XIXth and XXth centuries had no (or few) ideas of the potential of Oriental ascetism like Buddhism or Jaïnism.

If you read the first books of Marx, it's about all about "emancipation".
But as I pointed, Marx didn't discover or was informed of the final step of emancipation that Buddhists have reached: the renunciation or the absence of desire.

IMO. To reach Communism or Social-Anarchism and to efficiently destroy Capitalism, working on renunciation is the most efficient and peaceful way...

[Wendigo]

I couldn't think of much worse than the renunciation of desire

The desire to want to do better, to have a better job, a bigger house when you start a family, having some pride in your achievements even if they are not setting the world on fire, a simple desire to have a better life for you and your children. Simple desires like to see a new movie, try different foods, go to places you really want to visit.

If you want to start a desire free community please go ahead but don't come knocking on our doors asking to borrow a cup of sugar

As for Buddhism it's not immune from evil fanatics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32929855
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...alay-ma-ba-tha
http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/ext...with-violence/

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

I couldn't think of much worse than the renunciation of desire

The desire to want to do better, to have a better job, a bigger house when you start a family, having some pride in your achievements even if they are not setting the world on fire, a simple desire to have a better life for you and your children. Simple desires like to see a new movie, try different foods, go to places you really want to visit.

If you want to start a desire free community please go ahead but don't come knocking on our doors asking to borrow a cup of sugar

As for Buddhism it's not immune from evil fanatics.

All our pains come from our desires.
If we are unsatisfied, it's because of desires that we can't accomplish, it's because of the discountinous thoughts that invade our brain.
Did you observe how thoughts appear and disappear... without any reason ?

Even in ancien Greek philosophy, philosophers pointed the problem of wishes.
That developped different schools like Neo-Platonism, Cynicism or Skepticism, Epicureanism and Stoicism.
Stoicism is almost like Buddhism.

How many times we had our brain telling us: "I want this, I want this, I want this..." and we are not happy until we have it ? And when we have it, we want something new and care less about what we have.

Just look inside your own home... how many objects you will never or rarely use again, but you really wanted to have ?

Would Russian communism still be alive, if they would have practiced more meditation and mindfulness? I'm almost sure.

Just look how Capitalism runs now Russia.
All the Western liberals want to invest in this country.
Past Marxist theories were extremely weak on mindfulness.
IMO that's the Achille's heel of this ideology.
Mixed with mindfulness exercises, it's unfightable and unbeatable.

Capitalism destroys everything because of people insatisfaction.

If during the 70's the American hippies would have been more assiduous and less addicted to drugs, today USA would be a peaceful Marxist economy market and not an Imperialist one.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

IMO. To reach Communism or Social-Anarchism and to efficiently destroy Capitalism, working on renunciation is the most efficient and peaceful way...

Not with me alive it won't

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

All our pains come from our desires.
If we are unsatisfied, it's because of desires that we can't accomplish, it's because of the discountinous thoughts that invade our brain.
Did you observe how thoughts appear and disappear... without any reason ?

All my pains come from physical issues not unfilled desires.
Are there things I would like.... yes, will I get them all no, does it bother me, not one jot as I prioritise what I need first.
I do not want the state , ANY state telling me what I should have and what I can do.
I am very satisfied with what I have, I earn a decent wage for doing a complex job.

If we were to retain every thought we ever had our heads would explode.

Personally my thoughts do not disappear but as I tend to I move on to the next matter pretty quickly, I retain only what I need right now and what is or could be important, the rest can be trashed. I think that has to be the worst argument of the 186 different ones you have tried to use to date

Originally Posted by xyzde69

If during the 70's the American hippies would have been more assiduous and less addicted to drugs, today USA would be a peaceful Marxist economy market and not an Imperialist one.

Thank God for cannabis and poppies then

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

I do not want the state , ANY state telling me what I should have and what I can do.
I am very satisfied with what I have, I earn a decent wage for doing a complex job.

Mate, I don't know how many times I've posted that comment and yourself and others but that won't get through their heads, He will tell you you don't get paid enough, He will tell you the same thing over and over how you should lead your life within his and Marx's ideals , but he don't see he's telling you They don't see how hated that whole system, one thing I have noticed not just here but in the real world is how the left assume everyone is with them.

One of my favourite idiot protests here by the far left, Uni students who protested in parliament house over assylum seekers. Pathetic video here of them getting escorted out and screaming like they're getting raped or tortured, some of them glued their hands to the rails of the gallery and then had the nerve to complain they lost skin when they were removed by security from the railings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlutpZyrOlA

That's typical spoiled hard left kids who've been brainwashed by the likes of our opposition here on this thread, But, i'll bet the kids who are on the right side of politics were at university that day putting tax payers money to good use rather than wasting it like those in the video

[palo5]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I challenge you to demonstrate that Count von Bismarck was motivated by Marxist principles when introducing the old age pension

Yeah, I can see why you'd find that hard to follow, because he was an aristocrat, and anything but a left-winger. But he was also a realpolitiker. Also, he introduced much more than pensions in his social reforms

Bismarck was born in 1815, and lived through a very turbulent period in European politics in his own not-yet country and elsewhere. Think 1848. He never lost his belief that aristocrats should rule, but needed a counterweight to the socialists. So he adopted some socialist principles, and gave new social rights to industrial workers, who he hoped would stay on-side, not become socialist themselves, and turn against the established order

It worked, and Germans today - even socialists - still celebrate him for starting something that became much greater

So you see, there is most definitely a link between left-wing thought and Bismarck, and if this isn't traced to a large degree back to Marx & Comrades, the historical point has been missed

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

If during the 70's the American hippies would have been more assiduous and less addicted to drugs, today USA would be a peaceful Marxist economy market and not an Imperialist one.

Since I was there, let me tell you that the vast majority of us gave up drugs, got jobs and started families. As a former drug addicted hippie protester, let me share a little more with you. We were always a small minority of the American population, even in our own generation. Most folks were middle of the road or conservative. As you should be able to tell from current trends and the postings of some VEF members, the people of the South and Midwest remained unreconstructed racists to this day.

There is another misconception in the statement above. The government of the United States has always been a tool of the wealthy and upper classes. It was designed by the Founding Fathers to place power and control in the hands of the well-to-do and prevent the vast majority of the less fortunate being able to leverage their numbers into democratic reforms to better the lot of common folk. Part of that design was creating electoral structures that would create the illusion of popular sovereignty.

As we say in America, "Money talks. Bullshit walks."