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
488 replies to this topic

#481
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

 

 

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? 


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#482
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 410 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?

  • zEVerzan, Yuli Ban, joe00uk and 2 others like this

#483
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,711 posts
  • LocationUK

And here is the video it came from!


  • PhoenixRu likes this

#484
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,256 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

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

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.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#486
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,256 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


  • rennerpetey likes this

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


#487
joe00uk

joe00uk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,711 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
  • 20,256 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.


  • caltrek likes this

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
  • 20,256 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.






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