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

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Social-Anarchism Good, I'll live nest door to you and I'll do whatever the fuck I like and you'll soon see just how much Social-Anarchism actually sucks

Does it mean that you fairly behave only because you are under the pressure of your state?

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Does it mean that you fairly behave only because you are under the pressure of your state?

Mate Pressure what pressure
You will never understand this, don't know why

1, I am happy
2, Reasonably healthy
3, Earn a very decent salary
4, Never hungry
5, Have saved money, own a small acreage farm that I have rented out
6, Have no problem in my countries laws
7, Am happy that both left and right governments have brought a balance
8, Free to move where ever I want to go
9, Vote in a very democratic system I like in State, Federal and local elections
10, Educated.

Why the hell would I want to live in a Communist state, which as you know and have posted here, murdered a member of my family for having an opinion ??? and that was a supposed mild communist state ..... Can you not understand that ???? it was M U R D E R all for the control of a way of life that is doomed to fail because under that system the vast majority have to have the same mindset, in reality , that cannot happen long term........ but you will find a way to convince yourself it can because in your mind you want it to work and nothing more ........ reality is what happened in world history.

[Wendigo]

In the same spirit

1. I own my own home and car
2. I am reasonably healthy, but need to lose some weight
3. Earn a decent enough wage for the area I love in
4. Have two decent pensions due to kick in within the next 7 or 8 years as well as the state pension.
5. I can travel anywhere I want in the world, again avoiding shit holes most sensible people would avoid (North Kimrea)
6. Have prospered under both Labour and Conservative governments
7. Have no issue accepting election results, even if the side I voted for loses
8. Am free to read pretty much whatever I want without some intrusive shithead employed by the State taking down my details
9. Similarly I can happily watch movies from all over the world and am not interested in the slightest in the latest documentary on the increase in turnip production in collective farm 28.
10. All of the above and many more

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

4. Communism now goes by the name of anarcho-Marxism

"Anarcho Marxism" is a bit like "Vegan Prime Rib" -- its a contradiction in terms. Marx himself called for a "revolutionary dictatorship of the Proletariat".

That's not "anarchism", that's a whole lot of unchecked power in the hands of the Party.

Russian anarchists in fact denounced the Bolsheviks, most famously Kropotkin

Originally Posted by Peter Kropotkin

The evils inherent in a party dictatorship have been accentuated by the conditions of war in which this party maintains its power. This state of war has been the pretext for strengthening dictatorial methods which centralize the control of every detail of life in the hands of the government, with the effect of stopping an immense part of the ordinary activities of the country. The evils natural to state communism have been increased ten-fold under the pretext that all our misery is due to foreign intervention.

{snip}

Unhappily, this effort has been made in Russia under a strongly centralized party dictatorship. This effort was made in the same way as the extremely centralized and Jacobin endeavor of Baboeuf. I owe it to you to say frankly that, according to my view, this effort to build a communist republic on the basis of a strongly centralized state communism under the iron law of party dictatorship is bound to end in failure. We are learning to know in Russia how not to introduce communism, even with a people tired of the old regime and opposing no active resistance to the experiments of the new rulers.

{snip}

"Bolshevism, day by day and step by step, proves that state power possesses inalienable characteristics; it can change its label, its 'theory', and its servitors, but in essence it merely remains power and despotism in new forms."

As Kropotkin notes, we've learned "how not to introduce communism" -- and we're still waiting for someone to demonstrate how to do it successfully.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

XYZ's views will have morphed a few dozen more times as he continues to read dull books and do a series of ideological 3 1/2 twists with pikes.

Reading original books, I slowly dismantled all the Anti-Communist assertions.

Finally, the process made by Capitalist propaganda is based on biaised points.

I only used scientific process. If one point is wrong, finally the theory is wrong too.

What did I break here?

1) Communism existed.
Answer: Wrooonggg.
Example: All the Socialist countries still used money, had a bancary system. Russia had the ruble and Poland the zloty.
The funniest fact is that USA made a lot of business with Socialist countries.


Normally, after this first observation, the discussion is over.

But let's play the game a little bit longer.

2) Communism = tyranny.
Answer: Wroooonggg.
Example: First Soviets were democrats and their representants were revocable.

3) Communism = famine.
Answer: Wrooongg.
Examples: Poland or Yugoslavia never faced any form of famine.

4) Communism killed a lot of people.
Answer: Wrooonggg.
Demonstration: All those Socialist countries still were State Capitalist countries.
The victims are victims of a form of Capitalism.

During the World Cup time in Russia, the final score would be.

XYZDE69: 4 - AntiCommunist propaganda: 0

Ohoho!
If I was arrogant, I should say that's a brilliant victory.

So my friends... when do we start a fairer society together?

[deepsepia]

So many things are wrong here, but let's just take this one:

Originally Posted by xyzde69

3) Communism = famine.
Answer: Wrooongg.
Examples: Poland or Yugoslavia never faced any form of famine.

Poland and Yugoslavia had massive resistance to collectivization, and Yugoslavia maintained private property.

So yes-- they did better than countries that more comprehensively implemented a Marxist program.

The less Marxist a nation is, the less it starves its people . . . that's not exactly a defense of the Marxist project.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

"Anarcho Marxism" is a bit like "Vegan Prime Rib" -- its a contradiction in terms. Marx himself called for a "revolutionary dictatorship of the Proletariat".

That's not "anarchism", that's a whole lot of unchecked power in the hands of the Party.

Russian anarchists in fact denounced the Bolsheviks, most famously Kropotkin



As Kropotkin notes, we've learned "how not to introduce communism" -- and we're still waiting for someone to demonstrate how to do it successfully.

I'll repeat again, Anarcho Marxists agree with Marx on the economical and social problems inherent to Capitalism.
Alienation, social slavery, increase in social inequalities.

But Bakunin or Kropotkin did not agree about the revolutionnary project.

Even today, liberals read Marx, because his analysis were well funded on several points. He was not an imbecile.

As I showed in this topic, even a Natixis banker recently quoted Marx about problems on the rate of profit.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The less Marxist a nation is, the less it starves its people . . . that's not exactly a defense of the Marxist project.

Please don't be offended... That's a totally wrong assertion.
I know that's must be very hard for you to see your main argument unraveled.

By the way, the Dalaï Lama defined himself: Half Buddhist, half Marxist.
I'd define myself: One quarter antispecist, one quarter Buddhist, one quarter Marxist, one quarter Anarchist.

Would it be correct I'd define yourself: 100% Trumpist, because you are for Capitalism and redistribution by runoff?

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

4) Communism killed a lot of people.
Answer: Wrooonggg.
Demonstration: All those Socialist countries still were State Capitalist countries.
The victims are victims of a form of Capitalism.

Errrrr .... Wrrrronnnnngggg

The fact that the numerous backward barbaric Communist states that crashed and burned in the 20th Century don't meet your twee revisionist 21st Century rainbow scented idea of what YOU consider Marxism should be doesn't actually make you right.
I judge those nations by the ideas that were prevalent at the time not some idyllic imaginary fantasy with Karl as the Messiah.


I consider myself to be about 60% water and 20% chocolate

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

I judge those nations by the ideas that were prevalent at the time.

Could you tell me what were these ideas please?

If you can't answer, I can help you.

1) No more greed.
2) No more poverty.
3) Fair society.
4) Assholes who didn't want to share their wealth or had the desire to exploit hard working poor people had immediatly to go to heaven with God.

Don't you agree with these ideas.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

But Bakunin or Kropotkin did not agree about the revolutionnary project.

Even today, liberals read Marx, because his analysis were well funded on several points. He was not an imbecile.

No, he was not an imbecile - he was a very well read analyst of 19th century industry and finance.

He had no ability to plan some other system.

In the 150 years after his death, we have had many attempts by many different Marxists of different flavors to "implement communism".

They have all failed, and the problem that they fail on is the one the Kropotkin identified in the Bolsheviks -- the monopolization of power by a revolutionary Communist Party.

When you find revolutionary Marxists who _don't_ want to monopolize political power in the hands of a communist party, let me know.