Norway Killer gets 21-Years

[Occhidiangela]

The "no true-Scotsman" argument doesn't apply if the original context of something didn't exist or was contradicted. Good try though.

Uh, sorry, I don't think you understand what that argument is.

I do think you understand how to present yourself as a card carrying fool.

You may pat yourself on the back. If you pull a muscle, it'll be the second one. Don't forget to clean up afterwards.

You are the same quality of idealogue as that nitwit in Norway who should have been hanged.

I think I can offer you a theme song.

I am Irony Man!

Sing it loud, sing it proud.

[FireIceTalon]

The "no true-Scotsman" argument doesn't apply if the original context of something didn't exist or was contradicted. Good try though.

Uh, sorry, I don't think you understand what that argument is.

I do think you understand how to present yourself as a card carrying fool.

You may pat yourself on the back. If you pull a muscle, it'll be the second one. Don't forget to clean up afterwards.

You are the same quality of idealogue as that nitwit in Norway who should have been hanged.

I think I can offer you a theme song.

I am Irony Man!

Sing it loud, sing it proud.

And that is all that needs to be said.

[kandrathe]

That force, would be the Proletarian itself.

So the kind of force of a mob, like in Zimbabwe or Somalia, where those who are the "have's" get hacked to death with a machete, and then fed to the hyena's. Then all the "have not's" occupy the land. But since they are poor they have no way to produce nearly the same amount of food as the original land owner. Once someone rises up in "ownership" status enough, the cycle repeats itself. Blessed anarchy.

In other words,{insert meaningless circular argument}. Under Capitalism, they do not.

Yeah, I went to college and I took the class too. I cannot employ you to rake my yard without exploiting you. The fantasy here is that everyone will just take the same "communism" course you did, and then everyone will just get to it. If that worked, we could just educate away arguments, and war, and selfishness.

1. Indeed, this society has not yet materialized... yadda yadda yadda...
2. Magic
3. Then we don't have to be Socialists anymore, or talk about politics ever again.

Can we just move to #3 now?

PS. You had this coming. Perhaps next time you will think twice about your choice of words when provoking an argument with me.

You crossed the ad hominem line. I would suggest you edit your post. When someone pokes you in the ribs, you don't burn down their house.

[FireIceTalon]

So the kind of force of a mob, like in Zimbabwe or Somalia, where those who are the "have's" get hacked to death with a machete, and then fed to the hyena's. Then all the "have not's" occupy the land. But since they are poor they have no way to produce nearly the same amount of food as the original land owner. Once someone rises up in "ownership" status enough, the cycle repeats itself. Blessed anarchy.

Those are your words (a sweeping generalization at that), not mine, or the Proletarians in general. A proletarian revolution isn't about revenge, it is about social justice and the elimination of exploitation of man by man and class antagonisms. Should we have a successful revolution, capitalists or those of the old order in general would be more than welcome to be integrated into socialist society. Contrary to popular belief, we aren't vindictive like that (at least most of us aren't). See, unlike you right wingers, we don't care about ideology - just the economic means of production that influence relationships of class antagonist societies, in other words, material conditions. That is why Capitalists view society through an Idealistic lens, and Socialists view it in a Materialist one. Idealism is garbage, and if Socialism was grounded in Idealism, I'd say to hell with Socialism also. Much of the utopian Socialism that was fancied by the arising middle class during the Industrial Revolution was Idealist, and that is when Marx came and denounced utopian Socialism in favor of Scientific Socialism.

Counter-revolutionary movements that are a DIRECT threat to our class interests, or those which are reactionary and seek to crush the revolution with the intent of reverting back to Capitalism, as seen in the Paris Commune of 1871, will be dealt with. If that calls for use of violence, to defend our class interests and protect the revolution, then so be it. No doubt, it will be you reactionaries that will use violence first, and when we retaliate, the reactionaries will cry about it and call us dictators, even though it will be they who use armed resistance and terrorism against us. Hell, the police beat and pepper sprayed Occupy Protestor students, I can only imagine the force they'd try to use against a more radical movement. That being said, a revolution consists of much more than simple "rioting". It involves a variety of actions that will be taken depending on what the material conditions of the time call for. Sometimes it will be meetings. Sometimes it will be setting up workers councils. Sometimes it will be more extreme things, such as general strikes.

Yeah, I went to college and I took the class too. I cannot employ you to rake my yard without exploiting you.

Irrelevant. And even so, what they teach you about Socialism in school (be it good or bad) is not very comprehensive anyways. I've learned much more about Socialism, what it is AND what it isn't, through my own self-research and discourse with other radicals (as well as reactionaries), both in person and online, then I ever did in a classroom.

1. Can we just move to #3 now?

You wish. No, we can't. Like it or not, as long as Capitalism exists, Marxism will be relevant, and there will be resistance to the status-quo. You want Marxists to go away? Then get rid of Capitalism. But upholding a system that will naturally promote class warfare and expecting there to be no resistance, now THAT is utopian thinking.

[kandrathe]

Sometimes it will be more extreme things, such as general strikes.

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.

Irrelevant. And even so, what they teach you about Socialism in school is not very comprehensive anyways. I've learned much more about Socialism through my own self-research and discourse with other radicals, both in person and online.

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.

You wish. No, we can't. Like it or not, as long as Capitalism exists, Marxism will be relevant, and there will be resistance to the status-quo. You want Marxists to go away? Then get rid of Capitalism. Until then, it ain't happening.

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.

[DeeBye]

And that is all that needs to be said.

Lame, you edited your reply. I saw the original. It was more interesting.

[kandrathe]

Lame, you edited your reply. I saw the original. It was more interesting.

So is a train wreck. Gawker!

[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.

[kandrathe]

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.

This type of rhetoric maybe works with your Marxist friends and professors. Your "revolution" rests on being understood by the average Teamster. Capitalists have nothing to worry about. Carry on.

There is no such thing as human nature. And even if there was, it is, at best, a social construct.

More denials and revisionist BS -- The sixth thesis on Feuerbach, and the determination of human nature by social relations -- Karl Marx You really should read what Marx wrote. If I were a solitary entity -- then even if there were a "human nature" it would be entirely my nature -- of course you need "a society" to encompass a "human nature". Wow. {hand wave} There is no such thing as Karl Marx. See, I can do it too. There is no such thing as a class struggle. There is no such thing as a proletariat... It just a word you use to label a group of people.

I found it rather humorous that Capitalism had a serious meltdown in 2008, the 160th birthday of the Communist Manifesto publication. Hehe.

Petty. Do you really revel in the misery of others? Your "enemies" are not the ones suffering.

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

I love those "it is not A for B, it is B for A" statements. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

Who said, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

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. Also, Capitalism and Democracy cannot co-exist - any system of class antagonisms cannot, by its very material circumstances, have democracy as an intrinsic feature.

A bottom-up Proletarian Revolution COULD lead to problems, as anything else, but that 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.

My view is a pragmatic one. You are confused, because you are actually the idealist here. We have an imperfect society already. You are offering nothing better. The change you propose would be bloody. It depends on every person sharing your viewpoint and ideals -- which frankly will NEVER happen. It just takes one Stalin to muck it up and millions will die. And, we have the communist choice right now -- whether to act collectively, or sell it for money. By far, our choices have been transactional to trade what we have (including our labor) for money or property. Marx's ideas have been around for about 160 years. What societal experiments that were tried peaked 50 years ago, and are in decline.

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.

Probably not. I don't think they thought about it much at all, hence why they lost their heads. And, in the chaos, the Jacobin mobs massacred thousands, including innocent women and children.

Just from this statement alone, I can tell you know very little about it, sorry to say. 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.

You assumed all that from just three sentences? You are a wonder.

The whole idea of "Socialism in one State" is Stalinist revisionism bullshit, and has nothing to do with Communism.

Because rather than look at actual history, we'll have to go along with how you perceive it really should have been.

I know about logical fallacies. You and most of the reactionaries on here use them all the time

It's always best to be inflammatory ALL THE TIME. It definitely rallies people to your cause.

"Reactionary: relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially : ultraconservative in politics " -- in other words an insult you frequently use in an attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with you. See POMPOUS.

There certainly are true Communists, no disagreement there. You are talking to one right now.

Please link your published and widely recognized manifesto, and then I will accord you due credit. I'm an artist. My sculptures are better than Michelangelo, really. You just need to take my word for it.

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.

Since the USA was founded on Anglo, and Judeo-Christian foundations, it would be a gross inaccuracy.

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. And all of them live in a world with borders - there is no borderless societies based on the principles of Internationalism, which is a important component for Communists and Communism to exist materially.

If the USSR wasn't communist, then by the same reasoning, the USA isn't capitalist. There are merely capitalists living here. Again, you are confused. Antony Flew's original coining of the term was in reference to a murder. No true Scotsman would do such a thing. Ergo, do communists kill? Obviously, yes. Do Christian kill? Obviously, yes. You can claim that x, y, z were not "True" communist states, but they are claiming it and most people accept it as true. Surely, Catholics would love to disclaim the Spanish Inquisition as well. What good is denial?

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.

It would appear, according to Merriam-Webster, that both Bob and Bill do not know what they are talking about.

Bob's first statement is not what you said. You said communists don't kill, because there has never been a communist state. There are no true Scotsmen either. Christians didn't impose the Spanish Inquisition either, because a true Christian wouldn't twist Christ's teaching to torture or murder people. But, actually, they did and so did the communists.

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. Materialism doesn't work that way.

I'm not going. You are the one who wants to change things. You go. Join, or start a commune. Then, when you are done with it, reflect on how it really is, rather than spouting off about things you've only read about. Me? Idealist. Naw. I'm a cynical pragmatist.

[FireIceTalon]

This type of rhetoric maybe works with your Marxist friends and professors. Your "revolution" rests on being understood by the average Teamster. Capitalists have nothing to worry about. Carry on.

Another fallacy of improbability that assumes material conditions will always stay the same, and thus the workers will never gain class consciousness. Sorry to inform you, material conditions can, do, and will change. Capitalists are safe for the moment. But to assume this will always be the case is not only overly deterministic, but also rather arrogant, not mention it flies in the face of history.

More denials and revisionist BS -- The sixth thesis on Feuerbach, and the determination of human nature by social relations -- Karl Marx You really should read what Marx wrote. If I were a solitary entity -- then even if there were a "human nature" it would be entirely my nature -- of course you need "a society" to encompass a "human nature". Wow. {hand wave} There is no such thing as Karl Marx. See, I can do it too. There is no such thing as a class struggle. There is no such thing as a proletariat... It just a word you use to label a group of people.

Two things. Firstly that link more or less says the same thing I did, albeit Marx viewing human nature as being influenced from social and economic conditions, which is more or less the same thing as it being a social construct. Secondly, who says one has to agree word for word, everything Marx wrote (even if one is a Marxist)? Perhaps there is some unwritten rule I missed somewhere?

My view is a pragmatic one. You are confused, because you are actually the idealist here. We have an imperfect society already. You are offering nothing better. The change you propose would be bloody. It depends on every person sharing your viewpoint and ideals -- which frankly will NEVER happen. It just takes one Stalin to muck it up and millions will die. And, we have the communist choice right now -- whether to act collectively, or sell it for money. By far, our choices have been transactional to trade what we have (including our labor) for money or property. Marx's ideas have been around for about 160 years. What societal experiments that were tried peaked 50 years ago, and are in decline.

LMAO. Your view is very much idealist. The change I propose is no more bloody and exploitative than your little Capitalist utopia is, with all its wars in the name of corporatism, oil, and imperialism, not to mention the racist, chauvinistic, xenophobic, patriarch elements that it propagates. In fact, I would venture that my change would be much less so. Capitalism is probably a more evil, vicious, and corrupt system than any other system ever contrived, save for those two F-words: Feudalism and Fascism, though Capitalism in general, almost always leads to the latter of those two, because of its intrinsic flaws and contradictions, and the fact it is prone to crisis. And even if my change is bloody and violent, to that I say, SO THE HELL WHAT. Every other revolution was bloody and dramatic also, yet many of them were necessary, on different levels, for the progression of society or a segment or region of society. The French Revolution, as much as you may deplore it, helped to end Feudalism and create a somewhat better socioeconomic system: your beloved Capitalism. It put a HUGE dent in the power of Monarchs, and for the first time, Republics and Democracies became possibilities. Where it not for that, we would still be living under Feudalism today, likely. You, yourself, and well-being would be tied to the land of which you were a serf.

And there you go again, thinking material conditions will never change by using the word "NEVER". Do you have a crystal ball that none of us do? Also, saying it only takes "one Stalin to muck it up" implies there is party involved, or that the Proletarian doesn't have class consciousness.

Marxism isn't going anywhere, so long as Capitalism exists. Just keep in mind, your little society is actually quite fragile - it takes great State force and lots of propaganda and deceit to keep this system propped up, which is why the ruling class goes through such great efforts to do so.

Your little Capitalist system WON'T last forever. No previous society of class antagonisms has - and demonstrably so.

Regardless, it is laughable to me that you worry so much about Socialist revolution being bloody, when the very system you support is soaked in blood and human suffering of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. Go to church man.

You assumed all that from just three sentences? You are a wonder.

"Communist nation" in itself is a huge error, and whenever I hear people say such oxymorons, be they Communists or anti-Communists, I can't help but think they know little about it. *shrugs*

Because rather than look at actual history, we'll have to go along with how you perceive it really should have been.

Actually, that IS looking at actual history. The difference is, you look at history as an Idealist, I do so as a Materialist. To you, Stalinism and Communism are the same - which is an Idealist way of viewing things. It's the same BS rhetoric as the Tea Partiers who call anyone that wants universal healthcare or supports same sex marriage a Socialist, which is a fallacy. Marxism, however, is grounded in MATERIALISM, not Idealism. Thus when we compare the Material conditions of the Stalinist regime, to what Marx and Engels wrote and advocated, the distinctions can easily be made. But you keep sipping the propaganda and Idealist kool-aid.

It's always best to be inflammatory ALL THE TIME. It definitely rallies people to your cause.

It's not being inflammatory or pompous, I am sorry you see it that way. I'm just stating a fact. Nevertheless, you support the Capitalist system, and Capitalism is reactionary. Now, if we go back to 1789, Capitalism wasn't reactionary back then, however it is now.

Please link your published and widely recognized manifesto, and then I will accord you due credit. I'm an artist. My sculptures are better than Michelangelo, really. You just need to take my word for it.

So, I need to have written a book in order to be a Communist now? Are you for real?

If the USSR wasn't communist, then by the same reasoning, the USA isn't capitalist. There are merely capitalists living here. Again, you are confused. Antony Flew's original coining of the term was in reference to a murder. No true Scotsman would do such a thing. Ergo, do communists kill? Obviously, yes. Do Christian kill? Obviously, yes. You can claim that x, y, z were not "True" communist states, but they are claiming it and most people accept it as true. Surely, Catholics would love to disclaim the Spanish Inquisition as well. What good is denial?

Just, no man. I've seen this argument too many times, and too many times exposed it for the BS that it is. Capitalism and Communism are both material conditions of society that have intrinsic properties that are necessary for their material existence. The material properties necessary for Communism have never existed anywhere in the world. The material properties for Capitalism, however, DO exist in the US, and in many other places. I am not confused, I understand the whole thing quite well in fact.

And as I stated before, I could care less if said nation states are "claiming Communism". Fuck them and their Idealism. Materially they are not and have never been Communist. This is why we can't go by what people claim, and we must observe things in a material context. America claims to be a Democracy all the time, but it has one of the sharpest class distinctions on the planet. Materialism is based on objective and verifiable FACTS that can be physically, historically or socially observed. Idealism is grounded in perception, which is very subjective.

It would appear, according to Merriam-Webster, that both Bob and Bill do not know what they are talking about.

I will take Marx and Engels definition over the very slanted and subjective based definitions of Merriam-Webster, which was also known for stating that the color white was innocent and pure and that black was dark and foreboding - racist overtones. In the past anyway, not sure about now.

[eppie]

If the USSR wasn't communist, then by the same reasoning, the USA isn't capitalist. There are merely capitalists living here. Again, you are confused.

The big difference is of course that the USSR was a dictatorship and the USA isn't. So on the other hand it is indeed not completely fair to blame all injustice there on communism.
Just as it is not fair to blame the economic crisis on capitalism.

However, what we do in the west (and what they used to do in communist SU but the other way around) is not question the excesses of our own society.
It is never said that capitalism should create a division between rich and poor, but it does. It is never said that capitalism should leave millions of people without health care but it does. It is never stated that capitalism should ruin our worlds natural wealth but it does.

The sad thing is that in especially the US (much more than in europe) questioning a thing such as waste and over use of the worlds resources, or poverty will directly get you labeled a communist or hater of america.

We will get the bill for our earthpredation tactics and it will not be nice when it happens.

Regarding the communists; there is the problem of dictatorships. Is is never stated that communism should facilitate dictatorships but it does. Human nature is such that we are egoist who always want more.....so you will never manage to create a communist society without some amount of force. (which applies for libertarianism as well).

Anyway, now that also the former SU and China are in their politics aggresively capitalist we do need to shift the balance back a bit I think.

Which brings me to the following. It is time for a thread about our near (20-50 year) future.
Will we be able to deal with the consequences of climate change. (did you notice we talk less and less about this....because of the economic crisis probably......but that nowadays reports are not anymore about it being true or not but about the fact that highly likely we will not be able to keep the warming up limited to 2 deg C.
So this will means huge changes in our world. In large parts of the world coastal regions will be flooded, and hunger will become a huge issue.
So what do we do against this and will e be able to stop great wars from happening.....I for one am negative.

[FireIceTalon]

communist or hater of america.

I am actually guilty of both of these things - though I am just as anti-Nationalist in general as I am anti-American. And frankly, I make no apologies about it

Nationalism is mental slavery. Yuck.

[Jester]

Kandrathe, don't waste your breath. Every generation of Marxist revolutionaries has made exactly this same argument: the past revolutions have turned out badly, but that's because they were insufficiently Marxist. If only they'd read what Marx said more carefully. Ours, though, will be different, because we're the real deal. And when it's not? There's no reason the next generation can't use the same argument.

Reminds me of rapture-ready Christians, really. "This time, Jesus is really coming!" You aren't going to be able to talk them out of it. They either grow out of it, or they don't.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Kandrathe, don't waste your breath. Every generation of Marxist revolutionaries has made exactly this same argument: the past revolutions have turned out badly, but that's because they were insufficiently Marxist. If only they'd read what Marx said more carefully. Ours, though, will be different, because we're the real deal. And when it's not? There's no reason the next generation can't use the same argument.

Reminds me of rapture-ready Christians, really. "This time, Jesus is really coming!" You aren't going to be able to talk them out of it. They either grow out of it, or they don't.

-Jester

And yet another argument grounded in Idealism, and one that misrepresents a Marxist perspective and critique of past revolutions. You really sound like a simpleton here.

What you, Kandrathe, and others who support Capitalism don't get is this. Your arguments are based on Idealism, YOUR interpretations of Communism and what YOU want it to be (instead of what Communism IS), and ideology in general. Your critique isn't grounded in an observation of material conditions. It's grounded in semantics, ideology, propaganda, historical revisionism, and in general, bias.

Marxists use a system of analysis based on VERIFIABLE FACTS in a historical context - not ideology - of given material circumstances, to critique and understand systems of class antagonisms - much in the same way scientists use the Scientific Method in the biological and physical science disciplines. And we use it to observe, critique, and explain the shortcomings of what you guys call "Communist States" (LMAO), just as much as we use it to critique and factually observe Capitalism, or any other class system. You critique things based on ideology only, which leads me to....

Comparing Marxists to Christians is just stupid and perfectly shows your arguments rely entirely on ideology, which is subjective, and not objective as any argument should be. Religion is grounded entirely in Idealism, not to mention faith and superstition, and it CANNOT be analyzed, tested, or be verified by any material facts, let alone relevant ones of any point in history. At least Marxism grounds itself in something that can be observed and verified - Materialism.

[eppie]

Kandrathe, don't waste your breath. Every generation of Marxist revolutionaries has made exactly this same argument: the past revolutions have turned out badly, but that's because they were insufficiently Marxist. If only they'd read what Marx said more carefully. Ours, though, will be different, because we're the real deal. And when it's not? There's no reason the next generation can't use the same argument.

Reminds me of rapture-ready Christians, really. "This time, Jesus is really coming!" You aren't going to be able to talk them out of it. They either grow out of it, or they don't.

-Jester

Well on the other hand. China's communistic rulers were the basis for what now is becoming the world's main super power.

Cuba does much better than most other countries in the region, and they don't even benefit from tourism and US support.

[Jester]

Cuba does much better than most other countries in the region, and they don't even benefit from tourism and US support.

No, it doesn't do better. It's not even above average anymore.

Cuba before the revolution was far richer than any of its neighbours, with a GDP/capita about on level with southern Europe. Now it's poorer than Peru, Colombia, Equador, or a half-dozen other poor Latin American places. Without the USSR to backstop its deficits, the economy collapsed. It's recovered somewhat recently (if you believe the 10% annual growth rates they've been posting for 2000-2010) but is still kept afloat mostly by foreign tourism money and cheap Venezuelan oil.

Now, in its defense, inequality is low(er) than some places in the region, although I suspect much of that is disguised, and health and education are prioritized. And many of the countries we compare it to are also tourism economies. But the overall picture is of a country that used to be (relatively) well-off, and is now (relatively) poor.

-Jester

Afterthought: As for China, not only is it not the world's superpower (that's still the US by any metric), but its turnaround dates almost exactly from 1978 - the year Deng Xiaoping decided he'd rather catch mice than have a Marxist cat.

[shoju]

Real, true, "by the book" communism can't exist in a society that is run by human beings. It requires a more "wholistic" vision than what human beings are born with. From the time that we are born, we are selfish, idealistic creatures.

Part of the problem that I have with what you say fireicetalon, is that you have gone out of your way to say "Well they aren't communist, and they aren't communist, and they aren't communist" When those very people who you are saying "aren't communist" called themselves communist. You are, holding yourself to a higher "level" of the idea of communism than those who have come before you. It's easy to look at the USSR and China, and Cuba and say "Well, they aren't REALLY communist" when you are trying to defend the idea of communism.

You are using idealistic interpretation to disprove that the "communist" countries that have come and gone aren't really communist, then pointing at someone else and saying "No! How dare you bring idealism into this and try to debate me with it!"

The problem comes in, when you fail to realize that these countries used communism as their base, and this is what you ended up with. Human beings are incapable of a society that functions this way. We have thousands of years of historical evidence that points out that we just can't do it.

But this topic has really swerved off, smashed through the guard rail, and rolled down the ditch, and is preparing to catch fire. I think I'm going to crawl back out and up to the road now.

[Tal]

Gee it would be nice if every thread didn't devolve into "Communism r0xx0rs, capitalism suxx0rs plus ur Mom sux" discussions.

Don't feed the troll when he spouts about Communism guys. Ignore the statements and focus on the topic at hand.

[kandrathe]

Gee it would be nice if every thread didn't devolve into "Communism r0xx0rs, capitalism suxx0rs plus ur Mom sux" discussions.

Don't feed the troll when he spouts about Communism guys. Ignore the statements and focus on the topic at hand.

You are right. I'm wasting my time and he doesn't understand my words.

[FireIceTalon]

Real, true, "by the book" communism can't exist in a society that is run by human beings. It requires a more "wholistic" vision than what human beings are born with. From the time that we are born, we are selfish, idealistic creatures.

This is more incorrect, idealist human nature crud. Yuck. Ever heard of Tabula Rasa? We are all born with a blank slate. I'm not an Existentialist, but nevertheless human behavior, morality, ethics, thought, and consciousness has NOTHING to do with genetics, and EVERYTHING to do with cultural and social norms, environment, economic conditions, and other material factors. Because material conditions can, do (and will) change, so does the nature of humans. In short, we are a product of our environment. Change that environment, and you will change the nature and behavior of people - this has been proven throughout history. If we are indeed greedy and selfish, it is because we learned to be so, not because we are born that way - because we most certainly aren't. Just like people who are racist, sexist, or on the other end, altruistic and egalitarian, also learned these things. Material conditions change the human condition, not the reverse. The rule of thumb is, if something can be learned, it can also be changed.

Part of the problem that I have with what you say fireicetalon, is that you have gone out of your way to say "Well they aren't communist, and they aren't communist, and they aren't communist" When those very people who you are saying "aren't communist" called themselves communist. You are, holding yourself to a higher "level" of the idea of communism than those who have come before you. It's easy to look at the USSR and China, and Cuba and say "Well, they aren't REALLY communist" when you are trying to defend the idea of communism.

There are no "levels" of Communism, and what people call themselves is irrelevant - only material conditions matter. Hitler would probably call himself a "human rights activist", and he probably thought he was doing a noble thing for the world. This, obviously, does not make it so, as the material conditions that resulted were anything but noble. Communism is defined by a classless, stateless international society where the means of production is PUBLIC and all citizens have self-determination in relation to those appropriations. None of these attributes or material conditions existed in Russia, China, Cuba or any other state that calls themselves "Communist". You are still arguing from the point of ideology, and not objective science.

You are using idealistic interpretation to disprove that the "communist" countries that have come and gone aren't really communist, then pointing at someone else and saying "No! How dare you bring idealism into this and try to debate me with it!"

Nope, I'm using a MATERIALIST interpretation to prove my points. See above. Marxism is grounded in Materialism, and Materialism and Idealism are fundamentally opposed to one another - the former is objective, the latter subjective.

The problem comes in, when you fail to realize that these countries used communism as their base, and this is what you ended up with. Human beings are incapable of a society that functions this way. We have thousands of years of historical evidence that points out that we just can't do it.

Quite the contrary, really. Communism has never been realized as the Base for any society at any time. Regarding more of that human nature junk, see first part of my post up above.

---

Gee it would be nice if every thread didn't devolve into "Communism r0xx0rs, capitalism suxx0rs plus ur Mom sux" discussions.

Don't feed the troll when he spouts about Communism guys. Ignore the statements and focus on the topic at hand.

You are right. I'm wasting my time and he doesn't understand my words.

I understand them. I just dont agree with them. I guess I'm a troll because of that. Better watch out, I'm waiting under that bridge to get ya! The big bad communist troll - probably the #1 most feared and hated boogey-man by Libertarians, with high taxes being a close second. LOL.

@Tal, perhaps threads wouldn't devolve if people didn't instigate the issue with me? Just a thought.