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

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

But what would propose your political movements challenging the Communist party?

People who object to one party rule. People who object to restrictions on free speech. People who object to State owned factories poisoning their neighborhoods. People who object to one man leading their nation forever. People who object to folks detained without trial and tortured. Take your pick.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

People who object to one party rule. People who object to restrictions on free speech. People who object to State owned factories poisoning their neighborhoods. People who object to one man leading their nation forever. People who object to folks detained without trial and tortured. Take your pick.

Ok. But you clearly don't speak about Marxism.

It seems more that you depaint "fake communist" dictatorships or actual democracies, democracies in which we don't know when the parties defend private interests that put people under the dictatorship of money.
Democracies that massively contribute to destroy, through pension funds and private interests, African, Indonesian or South American ecosystems.

Let me show you an Engels' comment in the introduction of "the Civil War in France."

From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment. What had been the characteristic attribute of the former state? Society had created its own organs to look after its common interests, originally through simple division of labor. But these organs, at whose head was the state power, had in the course of time, in pursuance of their own special interests, transformed themselves from the servants of society into the masters of society, as can be seen, for example, not only in the hereditary monarchy, but equally also in the democratic republic. Nowhere do “politicians” form a more separate, powerful section of the nation than in North America. There, each of the two great parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn controlled by people who make a business of politics, who speculate on seats in the legislative assemblies of the Union as well as of the separate states, or who make a living by carrying on agitation for their party and on its victory are rewarded with positions.
It is well known that the Americans have been striving for 30 years to shake off this yoke, which has become intolerable, and that in spite of all they can do they continue to sink ever deeper in this swamp of corruption. It is precisely in America that we see best how there takes place this process of the state power making itself independent in relation to society, whose mere instrument it was originally intended to be. Here there exists no dynasty, no nobility, no standing army, beyond the few men keeping watch on the Indians, no bureaucracy with permanent posts or the right to pensions. and nevertheless we find here two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt means and for the most corrupt ends – and the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians, who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality exploit and plunder it.
Against this transformation of the state and the organs of the state from servants of society into masters of society – an inevitable transformation in all previous states – the Commune made use of two infallible expedients. In this first place, it filled all posts – administrative, judicial, and educational – by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, with the right of the same electors to recall their delegate at any time. And in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion

You have to admit that the USA was more implicated in wars, even without the consent of the UNO, or its own population, against other countries.

I recommand to you to read -"The Civil War in France" written by Marx.

It would show you, that almost nothing changed since 150 years, how fake democracies manipulated by medias and private interests, as the American or European ones do not respect the wishes of their electors. Today the people can't revoke an unfair gouvernement.
Our democracies are masquerades.

Just two little examples:
1) Why today, after all these atrocities happening in the US schools, there is not a referendum to know if American people still agree with the Second amendment?
2) Why several American states do not allow initiatives and referendums?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Ok. But you clearly don't speak about Marxism.

It seems more that you depaint "fake communist" dictatorships or actual democracies,


{snip}

I recommand to you to read -"The Civil War in France" written by Marx.

That is a book, written 150 years ago. I recommend to you that you look at what's happened since: when people who sought to implement "Marxism" filled mass graves with their victims and starved millions. Go pay a visit to Cambodia and see just how well that nice book works in practice.

See, you'll get no sympathy from me for your "theory" when I can look at what actually happened. Its like saying "I'm a genius at repairing transmissions-- oh, but none of the cars I repair work".

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

That is a book, written 150 years ago. I recommend to you that you look at what's happened since: when people who sought to implement "Marxism" filled mass graves with their victims and starved millions. Go pay a visit to Cambodia and see just how well that nice book works in practice.

See, you'll get no sympathy from me for your "theory" when I can look at what actually happened. Its like saying "I'm a genius at repairing transmissions-- oh, but none of the cars I repair work".

You still use the biased Republican or Democrat arguments to describe Marxism.

You never mention that the ruling class never wanted to share the power and the wealth. The ruling class always commited crimes and persecuted first and push the working class to defend itself.
But no words from you. Total silence.

How would communism have evolved if the elites would not have fought against it, but contributed to it?

Read "The Civil War in France".

Did you at least read Anarchist and Marxist books? Or are you afraid to be filed by the CIA if you download them or buy their books through your credit card?

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

That is a book, written 150 years ago.

You do know modern day Marxists and Communists live in a world of make believe

If there is one thing I learned as a "worker" and one who lived through seeing a decline of his hometown when the Auto Plant, Oil Refinery and Aluminium Smelter all close within 2 years of each other is this...

The "Big" companies are greedy
The "Worker" wants more and more

There is a lot of truth in the man in my Avatar's song Badlands, this line ... "Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be King, King ain't satisfied till he rules everything"

But here's what I learned , never ever bite the hand that feeds you One day that hand will slap back

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

You still use the biaised Republican or Democrat arguments to describe Marxism.

"biaised Republican or Democrat arguments" -- that's silly, and its wrong.

My argument is an empirical argument. That is, every time folks attempt to implement "Marxism" it turns into a slaughter.

All I'm doing is noticing.

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Did you at least read Anarchist and Marxist books? Or are you afraid to be filed by the CIA if you download them or buy their books through your credit card?

Not remotely "afraid to be filed by the CIA" -- as you might have observed when earlier in this thread I noted just how good an historian I think Marx is.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Malthus seems to me far less relevant and interesting than Marx. In his 18th Brumaire Marx writes

just my two cents' worth, but this is really brilliant stuff. It still reads well, but when he wrote it, it was even more novel, more remarkable.

So I think its pretty clear that I think Marx is an important social and economic historian.

But that doesn't make him any kind of prophet. He never ran anything, and never had anything but vague aspirations for what communism might actually look like. The people who took those vague aspirations and started "communist" parties-- well, they gave us slaughter and starvation.

All I do is notice . .

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

"biaised Republican or Democrat arguments" -- that's silly, and its wrong.

......

You never mention that the ruling class never wanted to share the power and the wealth. The ruling class always commited crimes and persecuted first and push the working class to defend itself.
But no words from you. Total silence.

How would communism have evolved if the elites would not have fought against it, but contributed to it?

Read "The Civil War in France".

I first read Bouddhism books and was surprised to know that the Dalai Lama thought that Karl Marx was a great author.

Then I came through Marxism after creating this topic, debating with you, Brecht, Brian and other members.
I've listened to a French communist telling: "Be careful, the capitalist fans will always speak about Stalin and Mao, but never will comment about their own crimes."

As antispecist, I really think that Capitalism is more dangerous, far more dangerous than anarcho-communism.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

You never mention that the ruling class never wanted to share the power and the wealth. The ruling class always commited crimes and persecuted first and push the working class to defend itself.
But no words from you. Total silence.

No, that's wrong too. Here are some of the things I've said on this thread

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The essence of the Marxist analysis of history is that "good and evil" are irrelevant; essentially Marx is the extension of Machiavelli to financial affairs: people will do what's "in their interest"-- its not because they're good or bad, its because if, say, you own property, you have one set of interests, if you don't-- then you have different interests.

and

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Communism is the political program that seeks to implement the understanding of power and the economy that comes from Marx.

You can oppose communism -- I do-- while still having an appreciation for some the analytical points that Marx makes. Does "class struggle" exist? Sure. Moreso in some times and places than others, but I don't discount it as intrinsically off base. Its a legitimate and useful way to look at what's happening in the politics and economy of a society; its not the only axis of analysis, but its one of them.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

There is a lot of truth in the man in my Avatar's song Badlands, this line ... "Poor man wanna be rich, rich man wanna be King, King ain't satisfied till he rules everything"

Your avatar was raised in a country runned by greed. He maybe was lobotomized by "money is freedom".

Here is a BBC4 report about the American century. (1998) Duration 20 minutes.
link

If you are interested download and listen to the discussion between the American author and the British journalists.

British journalists said: "US philosophy thinks that greed is good."

Originally Posted by Estreeter

But here's what I learned , never ever bite the hand that feeds you One day that hand will slap back

Hhhmmm. I don't want to offend you, but (using the words of *Noam Chomsky) "that's basically an argument for slavery."

*on youtube "Chomsky explaining real anarchism at 13 minutes.

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

One day that hand will slap back

The point is to cut it off.