Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Socialism/Communism Discussion Thread

socialism communism Marxism MLM anarchism leftism class war dialectical materialism USSR Stalin

  • Please log in to reply
528 replies to this topic

#481
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,384 posts

 

 

I think raising children to believe in socialism and communism is child abuse and parents who do it should have their kids taken away.

 

Should have used capital "C".  You have just said that raising children to be good Christians is a form of child abuse.  That is not even a nice try, that is completely evil, if there is such a thing as "evil".

 

Of course, you may have just been trying to yank my chain for the pleasure of doing that.

 

If being a good Christian means supporting communism, then why have communist regimes killed millions of Christians (along with Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others) because of their religion?

 

 

Christian's commit genocide during the inquisition, therefore Christianity is worth honest discussion. 

 

Pinochet Commit's genocide under capitalism, therefore Capitalism is worth honest discussion. 

 

Socialism commits genocide under Stalin therefore socialism is not worth honest discussion. 

 

Do you understand why these arguments are genuinely silly and don't make any sense or do you just not care? 

 

(Good rebuttal)  http://www.yo utube.com/watch?v=9Hg3hdAUAPs  

 

(Very detailed rebuttal) http://www.yo utube.com/watch?v=MMG72W87opY

 

And to answer your question in a very direct way, engaging in good faith. Even if we assume that what constitutes socialism is broad enough to include totalitarians like Stalin and Pol Pot. We must also realize that the socialism of thinkers such as Rosa Luxembourg or Richard Wolf are not the same as Stalin or Pol Pot's socialisms in the same way that Pinochet's capitalism is not the same as French capitalism. 

 

One "communist" group killing groups of people does not indicate all communists commit genocide. If your argument was sound, and you were being honest by applying your own critiques to yourself as well; wouldn't it make sense to revolt against the United States government solely because the Rwandan genocide happened under a capitalist regime? Or does that just sound silly? 



#482
PhoenixRu2020

PhoenixRu2020

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Found on some forum. This is brilliant, I think. At least 2/3 of local futuretimeliners use this...

 

 

Brief guide for anti-Communist trolls

 

 

Constantly insist that Marxism is discredited, outdated, dead and buried.
 
Insist that Marxism is utopian because of its description of future society. For a change, insist that Marxism failed because it did not give a detailed description of how communist society may look like. Do not pay attention to contradiction.
 
You decide what Marxism really means and who were (or weren't) its representatives. Don’t forget to voice the concern that Stalin took power from Trotsky, despite the fact that you hate them both.
 
Nothing that comes from communists can be trusted, for except of “secret speech” of Khrushchev in 1956 or some few works of Trotsky.
 
Refer to the long lists of dead, without worrying about demographics and common sence. Three million? Seven million? Ten millions? One hundred million deaths in total? Do not worry that someone will check your words.
 
Being asked about exact numbers or historical context, use labels like “ruthless tyrant” and “cruel killer”.
 
Remember: communism or Marxism is what you want it to be. Feel free to stigmatize the target countries and regimes as “communist”, regardless of their declared ideology, economic policies or property relations.
 
Any unnatural death that occurs under the "communist" regime can be attributed only to Marxism as an ideology. Ignore deaths that occur for the same reasons in non-communist states. If communists were involved in some kind of conflict, all the victims of this conflict should be added to the death toll of communism.
 
Everyone ever arrested under the communist regime was most likely innocent of any crime. The communists were arresting only harmless poets and political preachers who just wanted to share their spiritually meaningful messages.
 
Everything that Stalin did or did not do, carried some sinister hidden reason. Everything.
 
Remember the classic two-step anti-communist attack. First criticize the post-Stalinist system on economic grounds, claiming that it does not work. If someone refer to economy of Stalinist era, attack it on the grounds of human rights.
 
Always stay objective. Feel free to criticize the flaws of capitalism, but don’t let anyone suggest communism as alternative. What can you reply being asked about ongoing and often deepening problems in modern world? Freedom! Repeat it until the opponent retreats.
 
Use words like “freedom” and “democracy” all the time. If someone will demand to define them, resist.
 
Praise secularism as the way to freedom until you faced a communist. Then play a religious card.
 
Your key phrase: human nature. For your purposes, the “human nature” is a quick explanation of why political ideas or systems that you don’t like are wrong.
 
Learn the magic word "totalitarian." It will allow you to connect two ideological antipodes - communism and fascism.
 
Constantly remind George Orwell. Do not forget to cite "Animal Farm" and "1984".
 
Do not forget the bitter price: Bolshevik revolution was carried out through violence and bloodshed. This is the fundamental difference from bourgeois revolutions, which were carried out through peaceful democratic procedures, with no violence at all.
 
Always insist that regardless of the historical and socio-cultural backgroung, gained experience and all other factors, communists always strive to recreate the modern copy of Stalin’s Russia.
 
Communist regimes have never been popular. Faced with evidence of the opposite, insist that people were brainwashed. Constantly remind about the “culture of fear” and notorious “knock on the door” in the middle of the night.
 
Remind your opponent that communist leaders were paranoid, they spent too much attention and resources to deter the counter-revolution, as if this threat was still real.
 
Praise the newfound freedom of Eastern Europe. Ignore the rapid depopulation, huge alcohol and drug problems, political instability, civil wars, ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking and child prostitution, organized crime, high suicide rates, unemployment, diseases, etc. Does all this matter when they have the free speech?


#483
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK

And here is the video it came from!



#484
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,888 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Hey, so is everyone just going to ignore Nepal?


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#485
Erowind

Erowind

    Anarchist without an adjective

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,384 posts

Hey, so is everyone just going to ignore Nepal?

 

What's happening in Nepal? 
 

I just did a news search and couldn't find anything.



#486
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,888 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Which might be a good thing.
 
 

Nepal -- can democracy and communism coexist?

When Nepal's new pro-China communist prime minister, Khadga Prasad Oli, shortly pays obeisance in Beijing, he will seek not only greater aid but also the establishment of "brotherly" relations between the Chinese and Nepalese communist parties.
This year the number of communist-ruled countries in the world increased by one to six, with the landlocked Himalayan state of Nepal joining China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam. Nepal's two main communist groups merged into one party on May 17, about three months after jointly coming to power.
Nepal boasts the world's only democratically elected communist government. This development has revived a longstanding international question as to whether communism can reform itself to coexist with democracy.  In Nepal, where communist China and democratic India are competing for influence, the answer will be affected by forces far beyond its border.

 
 
The Nepal Communist Party (NCP) is the ruling political party in Nepal and is the largest communist party in South Asia and the third largest in Asia.

As part of the merger agreement, the party's ideology will consist of Marxism–Leninism and support for a multi-party system in Nepal, while the party itself will remain  secular and governed by democratic centralism


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#487
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,053 posts
  • LocationUK

Hey, so is everyone just going to ignore Nepal?

When Nepal starts introducing collectivisation and soviets etc., I'll pay more attention to it. Unless they're doing that already, in which case I better start paying more attention to it now.



#488
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,888 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

What socialism is — according to Michael Harrington

As a socialist in the 20th century, he had an opinion on the USSR and often had to compare his vision of utopia with the Soviet model.
Harrington believed that Karl Marx was a democrat in the sense that his political ideology supports democracy. However, he did blame Marx for excessive vagueness and making it too easy to justify dictatorships with his theory. This, he argues, allowed Lenin and Stalin to claim they were following Marx to the letter as they sent vast numbers of working people to Gulags.
He also argued that the Russians, realizing that they could hardly implement socialism in a semi-feudalistic society, hoped to use state control of the economy to modernize rapidly. Using "socialism" to do this was never planned for in Marxist theory and had more in common with the Prussian route to modernization than anything else.
In the Russian model, the state controlled the economy with little or no input from the workers. The state was, in turn, controlled by the communist party with little or no input from the majority of the population who were non-members. He argued that these points made the Russian model "Authoritarian Collectivism" rather than "socialism."
He then argues that this analysis can be applied to any non-industrialized, impoverished, unstable country that adopts "socialism" as an ideology and then uses it to try and modernize rapidly. He gives the examples of Russia, China, and Cuba as case studies in what not to do when making a successful democratic socialist society. The utter lack of democracy either in the workplace or in the political system being two fundamental problems.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#489
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,888 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

inoffensive1

category: no war but class war

I'm not that guy but in my mind the big thing wrong with the standard view is assuming that bourgeois or proletariat represent distinct groups of people. They're particular sets of economic, social, and political interests based on a person's material circumstances, but if a person's understanding of their own interests contradicts outside observations of their circumstances it's problematic to accuse them of pursuing interests they do not actively pursue.

It's easier for me to think of them as those collections of interests, at least as much associated with a person's learned perspective as with their material conditions.

Having said that, the standard objective view says you're in a position of power if you maintain your subsistence by virtue of ownership - you do not need to work, because other people need the things you own so much they're willing to pay you to use them. In that position, without effort, you start making judgements which affect others - which individuals or which ideas are worthy of a chance to survive. This is bourgeois.

The same view says that you're in an oppressed position if your survival depends on winning and maintaining the approval of the people who own the things you need to live. Having nothing else to rent, you must rent out the hours of your day, and before they'll be valuable to anyone else you have to find the means to develop useful ways to spend those hours. In other words, without the foundation of property upon which one's personal subsistence can be ensured, they are in the incredibly disadvantaged position of both needing help and not having much to offer. People lose lifetimes struggling against those currents. However, if despite this you feel that renting out your time is noble, that your time does have value, and that it is right to be held responsible for demonstrating that value to the judgement of your betters, you likely will not relate to being called proletariat, even if that's what you are.

It is in the interest of the proletariat to place each individual in absolute control of their own material survival and comfort. It is in the interest of the bourgeoisie to restrict such individual autonomy while seeking to increase demand for the use of their property.

Whether any individual human person sets out with these as their specific or stated goals is fundamentally irrelevant.


And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#490
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,043 posts

I just thought I would bump this thread and note that another thread related to this topic was just locked:

 

 

https://www.futureti...cussion-thread/

 

Also, in that thread the following statements were made:

 

Wikipedia isn't a good source it's edited by the CIA and random people.

 

 

Odd comment coming from somebody who had just cited the CIA as a source. 

 

Also, there we go again: I don't like your source, therefore I will claim that it is dominated by the CIA and therefore untrustworthy.  I will only accept sources that agree with my conclusions.  A cognitive trap if ever there was one.

 

Mind you, I reserve the right to say I don't trust a source, say Breitbart News for example.  Still, if I do so then a fair way to proceed is to point out instances where said organization flagrantly lied or engaged in misleading propaganda.

 

Edited by the CIA.  Really?  As they say in Wikipedia "citation needed."  

 

Another point is, Wikipedia is edited.  "Random people"? 

 

I thought the whole point of socialism was to empower "random people."   

 

So when random people do something you don't like, a socialist principle like empowering people goes out the window.  Better to rely on what some dictator like Mao had to say on the subject.

 

Yes, really democratic. /sarcasm

 

 

No bourgeoisie democracy is a dictatorship by the bourgeoisie DOP is not bourgeoisie democracy.

 

 

That is a little bit like saying the United States is a dictatorship of the Republican party while ignoring that this country is in fact a two-party system.  In modern countries you have at least two basic classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.  Under a multi-party system, no class acts as a dictator over another class, at least not in theory.  

 

Now, if you want to argue that both parties are dominated by the bourgeoisie, that is a different statement.  Any way you slice it, the parties compete with each other for power - whether by way of votes or for campaign contributions.  


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#491
10 year march

10 year march

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 248 posts
Analysis makes me think the capitalist class will dictate that ether Biden or bloomberg runs against trump. Ether way the capitalists win.

#492
PhoenixRu2020

PhoenixRu2020

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Outlook said (in locked thread):

 

My god. Russian nationalism and socialism don't mix well.

 

LOL another cocky reply of yours... surely I'm not a golden coin to be loved by everyone, but for god's sake, try to focus on the subject instead of personality.

 

Erowind said (in locked thread):

 

As for the USSR being the first attempt at a classless society. The Anabaptists of old Europe would like to have a word with you on that

 

I don't know what would those Anabaptists like to say... The key difference between USSR and all the previous (or current) "classless societies" in form of sects, monasteries, prisons, tribes, utopist communes, etc - is not even in scale but in mere fact that USSR didn't try to hide from the outside world.

 

Erowind said (in locked thread):

 

...and the countless peasant revolts through the ages. 

 

No.

 

There are (though very few) examples of victorious peasant revolts. Results were such: leaders of revolt were forming a new feudal class. The ordinary participants, too, benefited one way or another. But in general everything remained the same.

 

=== === ===

 

Back to Marxism.

 

I'm going to repeat myself since we (me vs Caltrek) already discussed this topic somewhere. IMHO the main weakness of Marxism is its linearity and underestimating of matters like culture. Marxism implies that changes in "productive forces" will always, sooner or later, lead to easily predictable changes in social institutions: "The country that is more developed industrially only shows, to the less developed, the image of its own future".

 

Is it really the case? An example from ancient history: the same upgrade of "productive forces" (using of iron instead of bronze) has led to decline of early monarchies and rise of quasi-democratic city-states in Mediterranean, but also to strethening and further evolution of those same monarchies in Middle East. Another good example: medieval China had the enough "productive forces" for industrial revolution and capitalism to start sometime in first millenia A.D. but this didn't happen...

 

Back to our days: I think, in this regard, the western world is something like medieval China: the victim of its own previous success. I can not imagine the circumstances under which the Western world could step onto a new level. Rephrasing Outlook "Western socio-cultural background and socialism don't mix well."

 

If I'm wrong, I'll be glad to be wrong.



#493
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,351 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

Outlook said (in locked thread):

 

My god. Russian nationalism and socialism don't mix well.

 

LOL another cocky reply of yours... surely I'm not a golden coin to be loved by everyone, but for god's sake, try to focus on the subject instead of personality.

 

Nah. There's a certain measure between someone who argues because they're a dick and someone whose actually interested in finding the truth, and you go way for the former. Why waste my time and effort?


Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/Gnyr3sbdKkU

#494
PhoenixRu2020

PhoenixRu2020

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Nah. There's a certain measure between someone who argues because they're a dick and someone whose actually interested in finding the truth, and you go way for the former. Why waste my time and effort?

 

So, you decided to sink even deeper? Well, your choice, not mine... Smart people will sort out who is who here. That's enough for me.



#495
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,351 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
I'll bite my pride cause i still like you. When I said natural and spontaneous, I meant it as bound to occur, not peaceful and smooth. I don't disagree that changing socioeconomic conditions is violent and turbulent, but it doesn't mean that as technological progress grew that the move from a feudal to capitalist society wasn't inevitable. It's a natural progression, and spontaneous occurrence under the changing conditions of technology, education and abundance.

EDIT: Your language barrier misconstrues a lot of what I say. Like the last time I wrote a joke that you took to offense, but somebody else would've just realized it was light hearted and meant nothing. I'll apologize for that and not being more sensitive to it. Perhaps unlike you, I believe I shouldn't really care for the judgement of "Smart people", they only exist in our heads. Care for what an argument brings to you, otherwise it's a waste of time and effort and you'll end up a clown like Ben Shapiro.

#496
PhoenixRu2020

PhoenixRu2020

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Your language barrier misconstrues a lot of what I say.

 

I don't think my language barrier is THAT high to not understand your personality. Anyway, let's just drop it.



#497
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,351 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands


Your language barrier misconstrues a lot of what I say.


I don't think my language barrier is THAT high to not understand your personality. Anyway, let's just drop it.

Fine but since you backed out first, that means that I win the argument and the smart people like me more than you.
Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/Gnyr3sbdKkU

#498
PhoenixRu2020

PhoenixRu2020

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Fine but since you backed out first, that means that I win the argument and the smart people like me more than you.

 

Sigh...



#499
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,043 posts

Analysis makes me think the capitalist class will dictate that ether Biden or bloomberg runs against trump. Ether way the capitalists win.

 

Well, I think there are a few things going on in what is discussed in those two short sentences. 

 

First, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are running for the nomination of the Democratic party.  So, voters can vote for one of those two candidates.  If one of them were to get the nomination, would you then say that "well, the capitalist class dictated that they should win instead of Biden of Bloomberg"?

 

In any case, how exactly does the "capitalist class...dictate" that voters will vote for any of the four candidates under discussion?

 

Sure, they may use their heavy influence over the media and ability to donate money to the individual campaigns, PACs, etc.  But is that really dictating, or merely persuading? 

 

Put another way, voters may be persuaded to vote against their class interest. Yet, if they work in political campaigns and/or themselves contribute funds they can offset financial contributions from the "capitalist class."  Over the long hall they can support organizations and media outlets that provide a clear analysis of their class interests.  Through class struggle, they can succeed. 

 

What is the alternative? Do you honestly think that if they cannot persuade a majority of voters to support their candidates that they can win an armed struggle in a revolutionary war? 

 

Their is also the complicating factor of voter suppression and potential for voting fraud.  There again, a struggle can be entered into to ensure true universal suffrage and to ensure integrity in the voting process.  This struggle can take place through the ballot box to support laws that do not involve voter suppression, through the courts, and through methods of civil disobedience, including strikes.  The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.  


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#500
PhoenixRu2020

PhoenixRu2020

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Just one note:

 

What is the alternative? Do you honestly think that if they cannot persuade a majority of voters to support their candidates that they can win an armed struggle in a revolutionary war?

 

Such revolutionary wars being usualy started out of hatred and despair, and not as result of some cold-blooded collective calculations. Russian revolution started as a mere hungry riots in february 1917, that dragged the chain of events those rebels (the wast majority of them) couldn't even imagine.

 

Of course, under normal course of things, there is no way to "persuade" people to start a class war. But when this course is deviated from normal... well, then you don't even have to persuade, everything may explode by itself, for any petty random reason. But this doesn't mean at all that revolution itself was accidental.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: socialism, communism, Marxism, MLM, anarchism, leftism, class war, dialectical materialism, USSR, Stalin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users