Communist swine execute general with a mortar round

[Ashock]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...round.html

Oh, pardon me. Those are not real communists, eh?

[Jester]

Oh, pardon me. Those are not real communists, eh?

I presume this is just to antagonize FireIceTalon, and that you aren't really interested in a discussion of the relationship of Juche to the various other strains, schisms and sects of Marxism?

-Jester

[Ashock]

Oh, pardon me. Those are not real communists, eh?

I presume this is just to antagonize FireIceTalon, and that you aren't really interested in a discussion of the relationship of Juche to the various other strains, schisms and sects of Marxism?

-Jester

Well, naturally.

However, the story is still there and it's reality. People need to see that.

[FireIceTalon]

Jester beat me to it, but indeed, Juche is very reactionary, and has nothing to do with Marxism in the least bit. It's actually a very un-Marxist (if not flat out anti-Marxist) ideology. More so, this is nothing more than a troll post and reaction to the thread I made about the cops shooting the teenager. Lastly, N. Korea is a State Capitalist society, so you can actually chock this tragedy up as another for capitalism. Way to prove me right more, lol.

Your little beloved capitalist system has killed far more people than any self-proclaimed communist has, and continues to do so just from the fact that 30,000 people starve to death per day. And thats just from starvation - that doesn't include other social consequences of the system such as lack of medical care, poverty and crime, and all the imperialist wars raged by the capitalists. Fuck outta here man.

[shoju]

Jester beat me to it, but indeed, Juche is very reactionary, and has nothing to do with Marxism in the least bit. More so, this is nothing more than a troll post and reaction to the thread I made about the cops shooting the teenager. Also, N. Korea is a State Capitalist society, so you can actually chock this tragedy up as another for capitalism. Good try though.

Your little beloved capitalist system has killed far more people than any self-proclaimed communist has, and continues to do so just from the fact that 30,000 people starve to death per day. And thats just from starvation - that doesn't include other social consequences of the system such as lack of medical care, poverty and crime, and all the imperialist wars raged by the capitalists. Fuck outta here man.

While I understand where you are coming from, I think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that the 30,000 people who starve to death each day in the world is somehow solely the fault of capitalism, and not the other tyrants and monsters who contribute to the failed social structures that they live in. Capitalism may not be your cup of tea, but you are going to have to do some serious mental gymnastics to prove that it is the direct reason for those deaths.

[FireIceTalon]

Jester beat me to it, but indeed, Juche is very reactionary, and has nothing to do with Marxism in the least bit. More so, this is nothing more than a troll post and reaction to the thread I made about the cops shooting the teenager. Also, N. Korea is a State Capitalist society, so you can actually chock this tragedy up as another for capitalism. Good try though.

Your little beloved capitalist system has killed far more people than any self-proclaimed communist has, and continues to do so just from the fact that 30,000 people starve to death per day. And thats just from starvation - that doesn't include other social consequences of the system such as lack of medical care, poverty and crime, and all the imperialist wars raged by the capitalists. Fuck outta here man.

While I understand where you are coming from, I think it's pretty ridiculous to claim that the 30,000 people who starve to death each day in the world is somehow solely the fault of capitalism, and not the other tyrants and monsters who contribute to the failed social structures that they live in. Capitalism may not be your cup of tea, but you are going to have to do some serious mental gymnastics to prove that it is the direct reason for those deaths.

Comrade, capitalism or class antagonist societies in general, are the root cause of these problems. It isn't obvious on a surface level of course. Failed institutions and tyrants are bad, but they are also a reflection and result of the system itself. These things exist because CLASSES exist. I cannot think of a single point in the history of class society where there wasn't a centralized State of some sort. The bottomline is, most of the world is capitalist, there is great demand in both the first world and third world for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and so forth. And capitalism isn't delivering - because it can't. It's not a humanitarian system designed to provide these things for people based on their needs, its a system designed to maximize the profits of a few, regardless of the consequences. You can reform laws all you want, and replace bad institutions with more institutions, and these problems will not go away - as long as class society exists, there will be no fundamental change. The third world in particular is the way it is because of capitalism - they were colonized, exploited, and continue to be drained of their resources to support our consumerist way of life and living standard here in the first world.

It isn't even that capitalism isn't my cup of tea - that would be injecting morality into it (though I am a humanitarian and consider it to be a inhumane system, but that is beside the point). It is simply a failed system that is propped up by State power, lies and propaganda, regardless if its the totalitarian bureaucracy of N. Korea, the social democracies of western Europe, or the free market capitalism of the USA. It is not a legitimate system that exists on its own merits. Now, these systems do have different degrees of State control, but they have States nonetheless. And where there are nation states and governments, there is class society. I have my own ethics and guidelines that I use to govern myself with, and decipher between right and wrong, but I try to keep this stuff out a scientific analysis of economic and social systems. But if you want to look at it from a moral or emotional level, I probably dislike and disapprove of N. Korea's society more than Ashock does - but he wants to politicize it for his own anti-communist purposes (though N.Korea has nothing to do with communism or Marxism), whereas I view it as just another horrid, and anti-human society, and yet another good example of why class societies need to be put in the dust bin of history.

Contrary to what people like Ashock and most anti-communists want you to believe, the goal of Marxists or any other radical leftist type in general is not to control you with a big government, stick you in a gulag if you even think about dissent, and make everyone equally poor and miserable. This is complete 'Cold War' rhetoric and nonsense, which sadly has been very effective in maintaining such misconceptions. Our goal is quite the opposite in fact - to ELIMINATE the State entirely - so that people can live more freely and happily, and be treated as equals regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. Self-determination is the key here. We don't claim that communism will be perfect - just much better than what we have right now. Moreover, it will exist on its own merits, or it will cease to be so. But we realize why the State exists to begin with: because classes do. Thus class society must go, if the State is to be eliminated.

[kandrathe]

Thus class society must go, if the State is to be eliminated.

What, and how much do you have to smoke to ever believe that this is remotely possible anywhere at anytime?

Please link your source... for the smokes...

[Taem]

Thus class society must go, if the State is to be eliminated.

What, and how much do you have to smoke to ever believe that this is remotely possible anywhere at anytime?

Please link your source... for the smokes...

Well, marijuana is legal in California with a card .

[FireIceTalon]

I have him on ignore for a reason, dammit. And I don't live in CA anymore.

I don't need to link ANY sources. I have the historical and anthropological FACT that modern humans lived in classless, moneyless, and stateless societies (the stage of 'primitive communism') with no private property for almost ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS - class societies make up only a very tiny % of our time on this planet, to verify its possibility. Now, get lost, turn off the fox news, and go stimulate your brain by reading a book or something.

[Jester]

I have him on ignore for a reason, dammit.

I don't need to link ANY sources. I have the historical and anthropological FACT that modern humans lived in classless, moneyless, and stateless societies (the stage of 'primitive communism') with no private property for almost ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS - class societies make up only a very tiny % of our time on this planet. Now, get lost.

Astounding how even Marxism has its Garden of Eden, the lost-and-future paradise.

Does it disturb you at all that this anthropological "fact" was dreamed up long before anthropology had taken more than baby steps? That Marx had no better idea than a wild guess about what life was like in the early holocene, and neither did anyone else of his era?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

'primitive communism' was not without its problems by any means. When you live in nature, you have to deal with it. But the problems of nature are a very different thing altogether from being controlled by a small elite (protected and legitimized by a powerful State) that parasitically lives off your labor. Modern communism will be vastly superior to both primitive communism and capitalism in every way. The point is, it is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE for humans to live in a classless/stateless and moneyless society, because it was done before, and for a very extensive period of time. There is no reason to believe it cannot be done now, and such a society would be all the better considering 'primitive communism' lacked the technology, science, and resources we have today.

[Jester]

'primitive communism' was not without its problems by any means. When you live in nature, you have to deal with it. But the problems of nature are a very different thing altogether from being controlled by a small elite (protected and legitimized by a powerful State) that parasitically lives off your labor. Modern communism will be vastly superior to both primitive communism and capitalism in every way. The point is, it is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE for humans to live in a classless/stateless and moneyless society, because it was done before, and for a very extensive period of time. There is no reason to believe it cannot be done now, and such a society would be all the better considering 'primitive communism' lacked the technology, science, and resources we have today.

Perhaps you didn't read my post.

If I may reiterate, does it disturb your analysis at all that this "fact" of "primitive communism" is is not based on any actual evidence of early holocene life, but rather on the primitivist fantasies of a handful of 19th century scholars?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

'primitive communism' was not without its problems by any means. When you live in nature, you have to deal with it. But the problems of nature are a very different thing altogether from being controlled by a small elite (protected and legitimized by a powerful State) that parasitically lives off your labor. Modern communism will be vastly superior to both primitive communism and capitalism in every way. The point is, it is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE for humans to live in a classless/stateless and moneyless society, because it was done before, and for a very extensive period of time. There is no reason to believe it cannot be done now, and such a society would be all the better considering 'primitive communism' lacked the technology, science, and resources we have today.

Perhaps you didn't read my post.

If I may reiterate, does it disturb your analysis at all that this "fact" of "primitive communism" is is not based on any actual evidence of early holocene life, but rather on the primitivist fantasies of a handful of 19th century scholars?

-Jester

So there were markets, commodities, money, a State, and classes during the holocene? Is this what you are saying? If so, do you have evidence to support this? Because an objective look at the social relationships answers that question with an solid "no".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_c..._societies

And this isn't just the claim of a handful of 19th century scholars - a prominent 20th century anthropologist agrees also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead

Class societies are estimated to have began sometime shortly after the Agricultural Revolution (roughly 10,000 years ago). This is only about 10% of our time on this planet (and if you include Archaic humans, it is less than that).

Historical stages of human development and the social relationships within them

[Jester]

So there were markets, money, a State, and classes during the holocene? Is this what you are saying? If so, do you have evidence to support this?

What I am saying is that we have very little evidence about social organization during this period, and what little we have gathered was certainly not available to Marx nor Engels nor anyone else of their era.

It is, of course, the positive factual claim that requires substantiation. Russell's Teapot and all that.

Were one to simply ignore the problem of evidence, however, the next roadblock is fairly obvious: A band of 50 kin in a resource-abundant land might well be able to function in a non-hierarchical, non-commercial form of life. How on earth does one scale that up to even 500 people, let alone 7 billion? People start killing each other right around the 100 mark, which is why we see so little evidence of groups larger than bands without hierarchical political organization.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Well, we can certainly agree that there were no nation states or governments back then. That being the case, that would mean there was no classes either, because class society necessitates a State by default. If you try to subjugate others without the legitimacy of State power to back you up, it isn't going to last for long, lol. Sure, we can't know the exact details down to the very fabric of daily life from that time, but we know enough to have a fairly accurate interpretation of how they were organized. Even Darwin's theory of Evolution wasn't completely legitimized and accepted by the mainstream until well after he died, but he turned out to be very correct. I think such is the case with Marx and his dialectical conception of history as well, at least up to this stage thus far. Whether socialism and eventually communism come to fruition remains to be seen, but it isn't out of the question by any means. I think Marx did for the historical development of our species, what Darwin did for the biological development of it.

[Jester]

Even Darwin's theory of Evolution wasn't completely legitimized and accepted by the mainstream until well after he died, but he turned out to be very correct.

Darwin's basic conception of evolution through natural selection was well-accepted within the mainstream scientific community almost immediately. However, the details of his explanations were frequently incorrect, and a great deal of his theory, notably the entire mechanism of variation (genetics, as we now know) has been replaced by newer, better theories.

How's that dialectical materialism doing these days? Just peachy? Still looks the same as it did in the 1840s?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

No need to be snide, we are having a civilized conversation, let's keep it that way please.

Peachy indeed Dialectics is a very useful tool for understanding and analyzing change in society - though I don't consider it the best, or at least not the only tool, for solutions. I recently wrote a paper explaining the origins and historical development of institutionalized racism in America, using dialectical materialism. I found it useful for outlining the development and characteristics of each era of racism, and the material circumstances within each era that legitimized it as a systemic condition and process.

[Jester]

No need to be snide, we are having a civilized conversation, let's keep it that way please.

Right, because you've been a real gentleman in this thread, as always.

Peachy indeed Dialectics is a very useful tool for understanding and analyzing change in society - though I don't consider it the best, or at least not the only tool, for solutions. I recently wrote a paper explaining the origins and historical development of institutionalized racism in America, using dialectical materialism. I found it useful for outlining the development and characteristics of each era of racism, and the material circumstances within each era that legitimized it as a systemic condition and process.

Lovely. But I could write a paper using astrology to outline the zodiacal conditions that govern any given set of historical events. The question is not whether you *can* apply dialectical materialism. The question is whether you *should*.

Darwin's theory has been through the empircal wringer. It survived with its skeleton intact, but altered in many of its details, including critical ones. As for Marx, it looks like it is less tested than applied, more believed than productively challenged, at least in the form you seem to be endorsing.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Toward you and shoju, I think I've been pretty civil

Marx's theory is much harder to test, because after all, we can't travel back in time and change the course of history. Sociology, economics, and Marxism are soft sciences, where as Biology is a hard(er) science so its not really a fair comparison in that sense. And even if we could go back in time, it would still be difficult to test because sociological and economic processes are constantly changing in a material sense. The process of evolution takes place much slower and over a very long period of time compared to human social development.

Nevertheless, I do think DM is necessary for really understanding the true nature of social problems and relationships within class society. The problem I have with more mainstream and conventional methods is that they focus too much on independent and circumstantial causes, and they tend to look at identity politics alone - in short they usually just look on the surface and fail to delve deeper, to look at the *big picture* in my opinion. To be fair, some Marxists focus TOO much on class politics, and as I've stated in another thread, I think this is a mistake also. Class politics and identity politics don't exist in a vacuum, they have a very important relationship to one another. As Marxists, we do hold class politics as the predominant focus, because identities develop after classes do. But understanding these interrelationships is kind of the point of DM, and it helps us to get a more comprehensive - and accurate - view of history. While DM can't necessarily offer up solutions, it analyses and presents the issues in a much more concrete framework than conventional methods instead of just looking at relative, independent developments or causes. To solve problems, we must analyze and understand them first, and DM is excellent for doing this. Mainstream views seek to reform policies, laws, and institutions by means of parliamentary elections; in the hope of solving social and political problems or altering material processes - while us Marxists, sidelined and not allowed in the conversation because we are too "radical", just sit back, watch, and shake our heads, knowing that such attempts for resolution are futile. And over and over, we are proven right - unfortunately. It is pure fantasy to think that racism, poverty, patriarchy or other reactionary conditions can be reformed out of capitalism. If it were possible, it would have likely happened by now.

While Marx was fundamentally right about the big picture of how capitalism works, I think he underestimated its ability to reinvent itself, and of course he only looked at it through a economic, political, and social lens. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist of the 20th century, discovered the theory of "cultural hegemony" and really built upon Marx's work by addressing capitalism in a cultural lens. In this sense, DM has evolved since the time of Marx, because capitalism has indeed become very deeply embedded within our culture (consumerism/commodity fetishism) - it is no longer just social, political, or economical. You should look at some of Gramsci's works if you haven't, I find much of it very relevant to the current state of capitalism right now. Cultural hegemony at this point has moved from beyond "theory" status, into the "objective sociological process" category since 1991.

Anyways, glad we can have a civil discussion on this topic, whether we agree or not.

[Hammerskjold]

Astounding how even Marxism has its Garden of Eden, the lost-and-future paradise.

Yep. It will be glorious. It will finally be delivered by the True Scotsm..eh I mean Ultimate Prole Saviour. That's kinda not catchy, I think a shortened version will sound better. UPS. How's that. UPS will deliver!

It will be awesome, the lamb will lie with the lion, no one will have to work (The -TRUE- workers paradise amirite), and other amazing stuff that you will not get if you pesky proles keep asking stupid questions like ' what and where is your proof?!'

Just. Trust. Me. Would anyone with a big beard and garbed in Red lie to you?



That bearded guy seems to be holding a tasty drink. I think it might go well with some Borgeouis BBQ. Running low on pork though, maybe some chevalier burgers instead.

But in all seriousness. Marx is real, and so is Commie-dian's belief in the paradise He ( that is, Marx, praise be his commie-ism) will bring to humanity. As real as a child's belief in the gentleman pictured above.