Norway Killer gets 21-Years

[FireIceTalon]

Against whom? I'm describing the state of anarchy that exists in those places in the world where there is no government, or when the government chooses not to protect property rights. In the best of human nature, those poor, and hungry proletarians will take what they want by force because they are self interested and they cannot eat college textbooks, or "Das Capital". In the worst of human nature, as evidence in corruption exhibited in all governments, they act as evilly as any other exploitative person. Whether it is democracy with capitalism, or a communist dictatorship, the reasons that ideologues fail is that we have no perfect people. Quite the opposite I'm afraid, and the seduction of power will lead to a Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc. And, it will be all too easy to corrupt the ideology, whatever the system, to enslave the masses for the benefit of the elite few. I find your pursuits here quixotic and very unrealistic.

Against the Capitalists? Who else?

There is no "anarchy" during the "dictatorship of the Proletarian" - such circumstances can only occur when the workers have full class consciousness, when in that case they know their class interests. If they don't know their class interests, the revolution will not even materialize. Anarchy would occur with the simultaneous abolition of Capitalism AND the State and entrance straight into a Communist society - which is something indeed that Anarchists advocate. Marxists, on the contrary, do NOT. Rather, we want the immediate abolishment of Capitalism, and a period of Socialism, which entails the gradual abolition of the State until all elements and structures of ruling class ideology are eliminated and the means of production is nationalized by the workers, to the workers. Only when these conditions have met, and society has stabilized, will full-blown Communism be reached, an essentially more advanced stage of Socialism. Anarchists are utopian from our perspective, thinking they can just abolish Capitalism AND the State together and enter into an unstable Communist society. where reactionary movements still exist and could easily overthrow the revolution and turn society either back to Capitalism, or even worse, Totalitarianism.

There is no such thing as human nature. And even if there was/is, it is, at best, a social construct. The nature, behavior, conscience, and even cognitive processes of people are influenced by cultural norms, economic conditions, and other material circumstances that are socially manifested. The human nature argument, to put it nicely, is more Idealist crap. "Capitalism is a by-product of human nature" - the elite has been spoon feeding this garbage to the masses for decades now. Thankfully, more people are starting to question it. I found it rather humorous that Capitalism had a serious meltdown in 2008, the 160th birthday of the Communist Manifesto publication. Hehe.

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness" - Karl Marx

No one said society or people are perfect - so why try and use a strawman argument? Communists don't seek a perfect society. Just a better one. We leave utopian societies to our Social Democrat, Anarchist and Libertarian friends. Also, Capitalism and Democracy cannot co-exist - any system of class antagonisms cannot, by its very material circumstances, have democracy as an intrinsic feature. You worry so much about the masses being enslaved by an elite few - yet that is what is exactly happening under Capitalism!

A bottom-up Proletarian Revolution may or may not lead to problems, as anything else, it is dependent on the material conditions of the time - it has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. Again, you are looking at this in a completely wrong context - Idealism, and not through a scientific/material one. The Soviet Union and China had nothing to do with Communism, and their short-comings had everything to do with political science, revisionism, and the fact a Vanguard Party was involved along with other material factors. It has zero to do with ideology. You seem to think all Communists support such a party. The truth is, most of us are against it, except the Marxist-Leninist or Maoist factions, which make up a very tiny portion of the Communist population. Some of the strongest opponents to the Stalinist regime, were in fact, Communists. But of course, 60+ years of propaganda never mentions that. Go figure.

Think what you will of my pursuits - but just because they haven't occurred yet doesn't mean they wont. That would be a fallacy of improbability. I'm sure Feudal Lords and King Louis XVI thought the French Revolution was quixotic and very unrealistic also. And they certainly WISHED that was the case after it happened, lol.

Ah, well thanks for the 3 seconds of consideration. You really have no idea how much I know about the topic, or about my friends from former communist nations. Perhaps you should spend just a little more time on understanding logical fallacies -- or just logic. By your definitions there are no true Communists, there are no true Christians, and there are no true Scotsmen.p

Dude, these are not "my" definitions, this is the only definition as written and outlined by Marx and Engels. I didn't make them. They are what they are, and therefore there can be no other acceptable definition for us. Of course, some definition of all things known must exist - for if they didn't, all knowledge in society would be meaningless and everything would collapse. But trying to change the meaning of something, as you do with Communism, because you don't agree with it, is straight up intellectual dishonesty and historical revisionism. Really, you are just better off coming out saying you hate Communism, you don't WANT an fair, or equal society, and that you like things the way they are. At least you would be being honest, and I would respect that more (even if I disagree) than you trying to change the meaning of it to suit your own purposes.

Just from these statement alone, I can tell you know very little about it, sorry to say. Or at the very least, not as much as you would like to believe. And certainly not as much as I do (and to be humble, there are plenty who have been Marxist longer than I have and know a great deal more than I do). Most of what I have seen from you is the typical, Mccarthy era propaganda. "Communist nations".....this in itself is an oxymoron and demonstrates you have little understanding of Communism. There has never been any such thing as a Communist nation, nor can there be. Communism entails a classless/stateless/borderless society. The whole idea of "Socialism in one State" is Stalinist revisionism bullshit, and has nothing to do with Communism. I agree with you, Stalinism sucks, and I probably deplore it more than you do. But Stalinism and Marxist Communism are two completely different things, they have no material relationship to one another.

I know about logical fallacies. You and most of the reactionaries on here try to use them all the time vs me. Perhaps a year and a half ago this would have worked, but now, nope. I have too much knowledge, and a much stronger command of the subject and its concepts than I did back then

There certainly are true Communists, no disagreement there. You are talking to one right now. But that being said, just because there are true Communists doesn't mean a Communist society has ever existed. It would be like saying because there are "true Muslims" living in the United States, that we are Muslim nation. No, we aren't. The No-True Scotsman argument DOES NOT apply if the original meaning of something does not exist or is contradicted. You are using circular logic to try and make it look like I am using a No True Scotsman.

The SU and China were never even Socialist, let alone Communist. Nor is Cuba. Or N. Korea. All of them have classes. All of them have heavy-handed States. All of them live in a world with borders that form Nation States - there is no borderless societies based on the principles of Internationalism, which is a essential component for Communism to exist materially. And most importantly - in none of them, do the workers control the means to production. Therefore, analyzing these material circumstances as they are, we can see they are clearly not Communist. I don't care how many red flags they fly, how many sickles and hammers they have, how many Che t-shirts they sell, how much they call themselves "Communist", or even the fact they have a so-called Communist Party. In a Material context, the only context that matters, they are not Communist. Not even close, since they do not meet a single material condition of constitutes Communism.

Bob: Communism involves strong centralized states where a powerful ruling class dictates terms on others.
Bill: The definition of communism is "a classless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production." Since this is the standard definition of communism, it's impossible for you to be correct by definition.
Bob: NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!!!! LOLOLOLOL
Bill: You need to learn what that term means.

Bill is correct. Bob is not.

Those were your words. You said "Then we don't have to be Socialists anymore, or talk about politics ever again." If that is the end goal, then just move to the end. I'm sure you and a collective of your college chums could form a commune somewhere. There are plenty of models in the US -- which are classless and semi-functional. Most have the quality of life somewhat less than your average Cuban, but hey, at least they are free to quit it if they some day decide to own something. Although, from what I've read it's hard to leave empty handed.

ROFL. We don't just move to the end, and skip everything in between. Getting to the end this way is not possible. Your whole thought process is guided by Idealism, and not material circumstances. Dialectical Materialism doesn't work that way. Thats like asking scientists to speed up the process of evolution to prove that it takes place, which is a completely erroneous argument for obvious reasons. Lastly, why would we try to form a Commune, when you Capitalists would just come and take us over, turn us into wage slaves and exploit us, beat us, pepper spray us, and jail us when we protest (especially if we are of color), and finally suck us dry of resources and impoverish us, like you do to every other weaker nation? Or, if we are more fortunate, put an embargo on us. This is why Communism is, and has to be, Internationalist in nature, and why Proletarian Revolution must occur in advanced Capitalist societies before developing/weaker nations.

In a Communist society, there are no more classes - no one is rich or poor anymore, no one is exploited anymore, no borders exist anymore, and society, including the allocation of resources are produced AND distributed based upon need instead of profits (so not only would it be better for the workers, but resources would be allocated much better and thus there would be less waste and more efficiency), and all decision making is ran in a purely democratic manner, without any need for hierarchy. Every single person has equal autonomy in the decision-making process. Thus there would be no need for us to ever talk about politics again. Politics itself exist because CLASSES exist. Any system of class antagonisms will always have politics, always. The minute classes do not exist, neither do politics. Would this be a perfect society? Nah. Not even Democracy is a perfect system, though I believe it to be the best possible one. It would be much better than what we have now, which is NOT a Democracy, but rather a corporate and State oligarchy.

"College chums" - Spoken like an angry reactionary.

Also, you can criticize Cuba's standard of living all you want, but most of that is to blame on Amerikkka, more than it is Castro. We put an embargo on them just because we don't like Castro's politics. Ironically enough, that embargo punishes the Cuban citizens more than it does Castro. But thats US foreign policy for you. Also, Cubans have a higher standard of living under Castro than they did under the US backed Batista, and Cuba, even under Castro, Kandrathe, has less people in prison per capita than America does Go figure.