Communist swine execute general with a mortar round

[FireIceTalon]

[quote='FireIceTalon' pid='203034' dateline='1351543139']
Comrade, capitalism or class antagonist societies in general.... the rest of a pro-marxist post that is essentially the same drivel that I've been hearing for months, wrapped up in a new bow for all the lounge to see

So.... You're saying that

Muslim Extremists
Racist Africans warring with other Racist Africans
Warring African Tribes
Gross Poverty in Africa
Underdeveloped Countries

and on and on and on is all a result of capitalism?

Many of them are, and the ones that aren't, involve other class based systems, whether its the theocracy of Iran or the military dictatorship of Afghanistan. All class base systems suck. We focus primarily on capitalism, because again, most of the world is capitalist and thus it is the most relevant class system in the systemic processes of the world. It is in the most advanced capitalist nations, not the third world or a backwards theocracy, were socialist revolution must occur first.

I'll give you that there is a great point of greed and capitalism ruining the lives of people, and that it does leave a wake of destruction, but it's not the cause of all the world's evil, and starvation. The conditions in Africa aren't purely because of being exploited. That is disingenuous to the real struggles that are happening there, and the people who spend their lifetimes working to improve it. The conditions in the middle east aren't purely capitalist wrought either. There is a healthy dose of extremist religious views, and a power struggle of politics there. That isn't Capitalism.

It is a cause of the great majority of it. They haven't developed yet because again, we colonized them centuries ago, and continue to exploit their resources - that is due to capitalism man. The extremist religious views in the middle east may not be related to capitalism, but it is a class system nonetheless: those who have power subjugating those who do not have it, and I'm pretty sure most of us were supportive of the Libyan and Egyptian revolutions, and there will be more to come likely. Struggle, movements, solidarity, and revolution are what bring about the fundamental change in society, not the ballot box (if the country even has one). So, capitalism or otherwise, my point still stands: class societies do not work.

I'm sure you find calling people comrade to be a hoot. I'm not your Comrade, but keep on keeping on I guess? Just another way to scream out


I'M A MARXIST WHO THINKS I'M BETTER THAN YOU BECAUSE I THINK THAT MY SYSTEM THAT I READ ABOUT IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE!
IF IT IS EVIL, BLAME IT ON CAPITALISM!
IF IT IS SOMEONE OR SOME PART IN/OF THE GOVERNMENT WHO MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, CALL THEM FACIST!
IF IT IS RELIGION CALL IT A FAIRY TALE!
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT BEFORE CLASS SOCIETIES, WE ALL HAD A PSEUDO COMMUNIST LIFE!*
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT WHEN THEY CALL THEMSELVES COMMUNIST, THEY AREN'T!**
I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT MARXISM IS SCIENCE!***

Irrelevant rhetoric and dogmatism that doesn't add to the conversation, so I won't merit it a response.

* Even though we have evidence that even ancient groups of people had "leaders" and "chiefs" and Despot societies, which would at least make for 2 classes. The ruler (and family) and everyone else.

And what group of people do you speak of, from what era? Evidence? Your claim is pretty vague, link me a specific. Also, this doesn't seem to indicate a class society - before the Agricultural Revolution, there is no evidence that private property, a state, money, or markets existed, therefore there would be no classes. Communism is defined by a classless, stateless society, so yes, technically ancient peoples lived a very communitarian lifestyle. People lived by and for one another, not against each other. There was no capitalist class to produce surplus value for, thus most resources were used or consumed rather quickly - and resources used to make longer term, personal items like clothing and shelter were communally shared. A "leader" in a hunter/gatherer community does NOT constitute a class society, sorry. The means of production is a social relationship that determines how that society is organized. In every society, classless or not, there are rules and a code of standards that are in place to help that society function. I think you are under the impression that communists and anarchists just want a complete free-for-all society with no rules, and where anyone can do whatever the hell they want. This is very, very fundamentally wrong - and your logic grossly vulgarizes communism by incorrectly reducing it to nihilism. As a communist, I have an intense hatred of fascism, but even I recognize that fascism does have its purposes, however ill intended they may be, and that it isn't nihilist.

** I love it when you use this argument. It's the "perfect" rebuttal so that Communism can't be critiqued. No one has ever done it right, they aren't really communist. That's not how it works. It doesn't matter what they say.

There are no real arguments against modern communism, because it hasn't materialized. How can you criticize that which does not exist? It doesn't make much sense to me. But most of the so-called common arguments made against communism, are indeed pretty easy to beat if you have even a decent knowledge of political and economic relationships, and some background in history, sociology, and anthropology. The hardest one to argue against would be the Soviet Union/Stalinism I suppose, because it requires a deeper knowledge of historical circumstances and often takes awhile to explain, so in person it can be tougher to debunk. This argument too, however, is very beatable, given you have enough time and knowledge. But I am more interested in critiquing the system we have now, capitalism, than defending a system that hasn't materialized yet. The problems of communism, when and if it materializes, will be dealt with and critiqued then, but I am concerned about the NOW - capitalism.

That reminds me of what a professor once said in college. Communism is fantastic as a theory. But it fails in implementation, because it requires a society devoid so many things that are inherent in a society in the modern world.

And thus we see the poverty of the modern education system in action, but the fact that 'cold war' rhetoric is moving from high schools (which is a compulsory pure indoctrination and historical revisionism session to keep kids pro-capitalist and bleeding heart patriots - yuck) to college is a bit unnerving. Just demonstrates that Gramsci was indeed right, unfortunately. Your professor oversimplifies material and political conditions that have no bearing on revolutionary politics with a sweeping generalization at best, commits intellectual dishonesty at worst. Or maybe, he is just parroting what he heard some liberal media pundit say.

Another thing - I find bourgeois reasoning really puzzling today. They seem to have forgotten who they are, and where they came from. In the ashes of capitalism's triumph over feudalism, which was definitely a good thing I will add, the bourgeois was a revolutionary class saying that things don't stay the same forever, humans change over time, and that it was time for a new society, yada, yada yada. Now that THEY are the ruling class, they switched all that up, saying humans are a certain way and we can't change (to justify their continued privileged positions), capitalism is the natural order of things and 'common sense', etc. Go figure....but it isn't the bourgeois that is the final revolutionary class of history, though they seem to think so. They are no longer a revolutionary class, but a reactionary one, and it is the proletariat only that can end class conflict.

*** This also made me laugh, out loud, quite loud, for some time. The only people who believe that marxism is a science, are marxists. Almost everyone else is going to call it an economic and sociopolitical worldview, pioneered by a pair of Philosophers

I don't really find anything funny - there is a lot of suffering and ills in the world today, and Marxism is at least a serious attempt to make sense of these problems, and frankly, it does a better job than most mainstream views do. Most of the world is capitalist and ran by a small elite. Anything that puts to question their little system must be pseudoscience, inaccurate, and unnatural . this closely relates to what I said above about the poverty of education, we want our kids to be good little patriotic consumers and puppets, instead of free and critical thinkers. Gee, I guess economics and sociology, both of which Marxism had an incalculable impact on, aren't sciences either. Marx and Engels were indeed philosophers. They were also economists, sociologists, and humanitarians. What is your point?

Sorry man, I tire of seeing the same things all things all the time, and your arguments are so close to the same thing about everything that it's just boring me. I read stuff that you posted for a while, because I hadn't met a Marxist since I was in college, about 12 years ago.

No one is forcing you to read my posts? But you engaged me, and I happily responded so we could have intelligent discourse on the subject. If you don't like my views and are tired of reading them, again, no one is forcing you to read them or engage them. *shrugs*

It's an old tired act now. Sort of like that show you watched on TV that was interesting and kept your attention for a season or two, but then in the 3rd season, you realized that there was no "push" to keep moving forward about anything, it was the same things, with new packaging.

No act going on here. Just an objective observation and analysis of the material problems in the world, and how they function. But if you want to stay in your comfort zone, well, there is always Fox News or MSNBC.

I will reply to you later, Jester, when I have more time.