|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 18, 2017 19:39:38 GMT -5
Chomsky once said that you shouldn't argue to persuade people, but to give them the means to discover things by themselves. So Jordan, why don't you humour me and try this? Read these two books, which I think most would consider the main cornerstones of communist ideology: The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin Read about communism online, check out communist youtube channels, etc...and see what they believe. Then look at the history of places like the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba with a critical mind. See what modern communists think of them. Ask yourself "Are these societies really trying to achieve the same goals as Marx and Kropotkin, and all the other communists?" If you honestly think yes, then you clearly can't be convinced - but it might be enlightening anyway. I think the only rational conclusion you can come to is that they were simply fascist regimes from day one that had no interest in implementing any communist ideology. And you should watch this |
|
|
|
Post by glider on Oct 18, 2017 19:40:22 GMT -5
Okay, I can see both sides of this clearly. Jordan, you and I are both Americans and we've been taught for years that throughout the Cold War, those eastern bloc countries, along with others like Vietnam and China, were all simply 'communist'. This idea of communism wasn't actually textbook communism whatsoever, primarily because of the Bolsheviks molding it into something that fit their own idea of what the Russian nation should've been. Stalin's 'communism' obviously was just as cruel as fascism (keep in mind Hitler and Stalin had an 'agreement' with invading Poland prior to Hitler going at the USSR). This pseudo form of communism dominated the 20th century - so now you had tons of pro-Soviet nations pop up, which didn't really represent textbook communism. If anything, what country has ever successfully implemented the purest form of its political ideology that promotes the people? The United States and the western world obviously isn't textbook capitalism, China is far from any sort of actual communism, since it embraced free market. We can all agree these authoritarian governments that have been called communist are terrible, but they do not represent textbook communism at all. I don't think any country has. My point is that they weren't "just as cruel as fascism" - they were fascism. As soon as they were created they destroyed any working class control, increased the power of the state, and centralised decision making to an elite "vanguard party". Marx, Engels, and Kropotkin would have considered all this absolutely outrageous. Using these places to discredit their ideologies is ignorant at best. Yeah I understand your point - also major red flags should've went up in the USSR when Hitler made a deal with Stalin. |
|
|
|
Post by glider on Oct 18, 2017 19:42:26 GMT -5
Chomsky once said that you shouldn't argue to persuade people, but to give them the means to discover things by themselves. So Jordan, why don't you humour me and try this? Read these two books, which I think most would consider the main cornerstones of communist ideology: The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin Read about communism online, check out communist youtube channels, etc...and see what they believe. Then look at the history of places like the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba with a critical mind. See what modern communists think of them. Ask yourself "Are these societies really trying to achieve the same goals as Marx and Kropotkin, and all the other communists?" If you honestly think yes, then you clearly can't be convinced - but it might be enlightening anyway. I think the only rational conclusion you can come to is that they were simply fascist regimes from day one that had no interest in implementing any communist ideology. And you should watch this This video is interesting and falls into the debate you guys should be having, it's a wild goose chase trying to debate what countries are communist or not. |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 19:50:30 GMT -5
Chomsky once said that you shouldn't argue to persuade people, but to give them the means to discover things by themselves. So Jordan, why don't you humour me and try this? Read these two books, which I think most would consider the main cornerstones of communist ideology: The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin Read about communism online, check out communist youtube channels, etc...and see what they believe. Then look at the history of places like the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba with a critical mind. See what modern communists think of them. Ask yourself "Are these societies really trying to achieve the same goals as Marx and Kropotkin, and all the other communists?" If you honestly think yes, then you clearly can't be convinced - but it might be enlightening anyway. I think the only rational conclusion you can come to is that they were simply fascist regimes from day one that had no interest in implementing any communist ideology. And you should watch this I did and it's nonsense. First of all, communism is not a "utopia". Interestingly, Marx thought that the idea of a utopia was necessarily oppressive, as human beings thrive in overcoming problems. No-one is saying that a communist society would be perfect, what we're saying is that war, inequality, starvation, and subordination are not natural features of human society. The fact that capitalists think such a world is utopian says a lot. The rest is just the same nonsense that you've been coming out with. I've shown you time and time again why Lenin was not a communist, why none of those regimes have anything to do with communist ideology. It doesn't matter how angrily this guy says it, it's just not the truth. Hopefully you realise this soon. |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 18, 2017 19:55:43 GMT -5
And you should watch this I did and it's nonsense. First of all, communism is not a "utopia". Interestingly, Marx thought that the idea of a utopia was necessarily oppressive, as human beings thrive in overcoming problems. No-one is saying that a communist society would be perfect, what we're saying is that war, inequality, starvation, and subordination are not natural features of human society. The fact that capitalists think such a world is utopian says a lot. The rest is just the same nonsense that you've been coming out with. I've shown you time and time again why Lenin was not a communist, why none of those regimes have anything to do with communist ideology. It doesn't matter how angrily this guy says it, it's just not the truth. Hopefully you realise this soon. That statement alone should completely invalidate your input. Lenin literally founded Communist International which advocated world communism. Why am I being portrayed as some America boasting, Trump loving dipshit when YOU can't even accept reality?! |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 19:57:10 GMT -5
Communism: The belief in a society without the state, in which production is owned communally by the workers, and power is decentralised among communities.
The Soviet Union: A society based almost completely around the state, in which production was state or private ownership controlled production, and power is centralised completely.
I'm sorry, but nothing in the Soviet Union had anything to do with socialism, let alone communism. It's clear in it's policies and history to anyone who has looked at it in any way seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 20:03:47 GMT -5
I did and it's nonsense. First of all, communism is not a "utopia". Interestingly, Marx thought that the idea of a utopia was necessarily oppressive, as human beings thrive in overcoming problems. No-one is saying that a communist society would be perfect, what we're saying is that war, inequality, starvation, and subordination are not natural features of human society. The fact that capitalists think such a world is utopian says a lot. The rest is just the same nonsense that you've been coming out with. I've shown you time and time again why Lenin was not a communist, why none of those regimes have anything to do with communist ideology. It doesn't matter how angrily this guy says it, it's just not the truth. Hopefully you realise this soon. That statement alone should completely invalidate your input. Lenin literally founded Communist International which advocated world communism. Why am I being portrayed as some America boasting, Trump loving dipshit when YOU can't even accept reality?! Names really are where ideology ends and starts with you, isn't it? Lenin: - Destroyed worker controlled organisations - Advocated centralised state control and implemented it - Advocated the idea of a subservient "labour army" - Repeatedly foiled communist revolutions - Allowed private property - Mass-murdered conventional (read: real) Marxists and communists These are his actions. Clearly he was a totalitarian, and had no interest in socialism or communism. At best, he was just deranged, but more likely he was simply a fascist opportunist. He can have as many parties called the "communist" this or the "socialist" that, but names aren't what's important. Actions are. |
|
|
|
Post by glider on Oct 18, 2017 20:08:37 GMT -5
I think the point that no one has brought up that is essential to any debate is do your own research. For example, just because NBC news or CNN told me this country is a communist dictatorship, doesn't mean it's actually communist. Mainstream airwaves spread alot of misinformation to a public that would rather find out what's going on through a filtered channel than actually multiple channels.
|
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 18, 2017 20:12:13 GMT -5
That statement alone should completely invalidate your input. Lenin literally founded Communist International which advocated world communism. Why am I being portrayed as some America boasting, Trump loving dipshit when YOU can't even accept reality?! Names really are where ideology ends and starts with you, isn't it? Lenin: - Destroyed worker controlled organisations - Advocated centralised state control and implemented it - Advocated the idea of a subservient "labour army" - Repeatedly foiled communist revolutions - Allowed private property - Mass-murdered conventional (read: real) Marxists and communists These are his actions. Clearly he was a totalitarian, and had no interest in socialism or communism. At best, he was just deranged, but more likely he was simply a fascist opportunist. He can have as many parties called the "communist" this or the "socialist" that, but names aren't what's important. Actions are. You say actions are important, then why do you oppose me calling him a communist so much if its his actions that truly matter? He's widely accepted in history as a communist, yet I'm wrong for calling him that. It seems like only YOU have the true definition of communism, which is a common trait among those who try to justify these kinds of tyrannical governments. |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 20:12:25 GMT -5
I think the point that no one has brought up that is essential to any debate is do your own research. For example, just because NBC news or CNN told me this country is a communist dictatorship, doesn't mean it's actually communist. Mainstream airwaves spread alot of misinformation to a public that would rather find out what's going on through a filtered channel than actually multiple channels. Careful, I think you might collapse Jordan's entire worldview with such mental ideas  |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 18, 2017 20:13:04 GMT -5
I think the point that no one has brought up that is essential to any debate is do your own research. For example, just because NBC news or CNN told me this country is a communist dictatorship, doesn't mean it's actually communist. Mainstream airwaves spread alot of misinformation to a public that would rather find out what's going on through a filtered channel than actually multiple channels. Well what's a truly credible source to you? |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 18, 2017 20:14:55 GMT -5
I think the point that no one has brought up that is essential to any debate is do your own research. For example, just because NBC news or CNN told me this country is a communist dictatorship, doesn't mean it's actually communist. Mainstream airwaves spread alot of misinformation to a public that would rather find out what's going on through a filtered channel than actually multiple channels. Careful, I think you might collapse Jordan's entire worldview with such mental ideas If you lived in the Soviet Union your television would be run by the state so your snarky comment holds no weight. |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 20:16:08 GMT -5
Names really are where ideology ends and starts with you, isn't it? Lenin: - Destroyed worker controlled organisations - Advocated centralised state control and implemented it - Advocated the idea of a subservient "labour army" - Repeatedly foiled communist revolutions - Allowed private property - Mass-murdered conventional (read: real) Marxists and communists These are his actions. Clearly he was a totalitarian, and had no interest in socialism or communism. At best, he was just deranged, but more likely he was simply a fascist opportunist. He can have as many parties called the "communist" this or the "socialist" that, but names aren't what's important. Actions are. You say actions are important, then why do you oppose me calling him a communist so much if its his actions that truly matter? He's widely accepted in history as a communist, yet I'm wrong for calling him that. It seems like only YOU have the true definition of communism, which is a common trait among those who try to justify these kinds of tyrannical governments. Because you're using his supposed communism to attempt to discredit the ideology, so the actions that reveal he wasn't a communist are important, that's why. You don't seem to grasp that even if everyone on Earth thinks something, it doesn't mean it's right. Columbus is generally thought of a great explorer who discovered America, the truth is he was an idiot and murderer. Lots of untrue things have been and are widely accepted as true, it doesn't mean they are. Yes, I have the true definition of communism, but it's not just me. There's all the others - Marx, for instance. Again, facts are facts - read some communist literature. |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 20:17:52 GMT -5
Careful, I think you might collapse Jordan's entire worldview with such mental ideas If you lived in the Soviet Union your television would be run by the state so your snarky comment holds no weight. Yep, it would. And yet communism is... STATELESS. |
|
|
|
Post by glider on Oct 18, 2017 20:18:59 GMT -5
I think the point that no one has brought up that is essential to any debate is do your own research. For example, just because NBC news or CNN told me this country is a communist dictatorship, doesn't mean it's actually communist. Mainstream airwaves spread alot of misinformation to a public that would rather find out what's going on through a filtered channel than actually multiple channels. Well what's a truly credible source to you? Those with statistics, proper evidence, the ability to view all the angles, doesn't slant itself in favor of a particular stance, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 18, 2017 20:19:42 GMT -5
You say actions are important, then why do you oppose me calling him a communist so much if its his actions that truly matter? He's widely accepted in history as a communist, yet I'm wrong for calling him that. It seems like only YOU have the true definition of communism, which is a common trait among those who try to justify these kinds of tyrannical governments. Because you're using his supposed communism to attempt to discredit the ideology, so the actions that reveal he wasn't a communist are important, that's why. You don't seem to grasp that even if everyone on Earth thinks something, it doesn't mean it's right. Columbus is generally thought of a great explorer who discovered America, the truth is he was an idiot and murderer. Lots of untrue things have been and are widely accepted as true, it doesn't mean they are. Yes, I have the true definition of communism, but it's not just me. There's all the others - Marx, for instance. Again, facts are facts - read some communist literature. "Nineteen ninety-eight was the 150th anniversary of the first publication of the "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedreich Engels. Reading the Manifesto is a good way to decide what you think of Marxism for two reasons. First, it's only 46 pages long. Second, though written early in Marx's life, it was repeatedly reissued by the authors. It is fair to say the Manifesto represents beliefs Marx and Engels held throughout their lives. The great appeal of the Manifesto lies in the famous ending of the first section: "What the bourgeoisie [the capitalist or owner class] therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." The Manifesto offers hope. It purports to be a scientific basis for hope that capitalism can be defeated. It describes economic laws that supposedly operate independent of human will and make proletarian (working class) victory inevitable. Despite the fact that Communism has been discredited, Marxism still has profound influence in the world because it seems to offer hope for change. The problem with the Manifesto is that it points to a false hope, which has been the downfall of all social movements guided by Marxism. The Marxist source of hope in economic laws is attractive mainly to those who do not see the revolutionary significance of ordinary peoples' lives and struggles. The Manifesto says nothing of the values of working people, either peasants or industrial workers. Instead Marx and Engels, with their "materialist" view of history, see economic development as the basis of progress and capitalism as a historically progressive force. They judge various classes not in terms of human relationships or values but by whether they represent further economic development. The Manifesto believes peasants to be a backward class and declares that the bourgeoisie, by driving peasants off the land and increasing the urban population as compared with the rural, has "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life." Similarly, the Manifesto sees the ruling elites, not the working class, as the source of enlightened ideas: "entire sections of the ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat...These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress." Communism is false hope devised to rule over the people. It's the opposite of what it says it is |
|
|
|
Post by glider on Oct 18, 2017 20:22:32 GMT -5
Careful, I think you might collapse Jordan's entire worldview with such mental ideas If you lived in the Soviet Union your television would be run by the state so your snarky comment holds no weight. Jordan, wouldn't you say the majority of our mainstream news in the US (honestly, all) is run by atleast corporations who can control their own narrative? |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 20:23:26 GMT -5
Because you're using his supposed communism to attempt to discredit the ideology, so the actions that reveal he wasn't a communist are important, that's why. You don't seem to grasp that even if everyone on Earth thinks something, it doesn't mean it's right. Columbus is generally thought of a great explorer who discovered America, the truth is he was an idiot and murderer. Lots of untrue things have been and are widely accepted as true, it doesn't mean they are. Yes, I have the true definition of communism, but it's not just me. There's all the others - Marx, for instance. Again, facts are facts - read some communist literature. "Nineteen ninety-eight was the 150th anniversary of the first publication of the "Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Friedreich Engels. Reading the Manifesto is a good way to decide what you think of Marxism for two reasons. First, it's only 46 pages long. Second, though written early in Marx's life, it was repeatedly reissued by the authors. It is fair to say the Manifesto represents beliefs Marx and Engels held throughout their lives. The great appeal of the Manifesto lies in the famous ending of the first section: "What the bourgeoisie [the capitalist or owner class] therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." The Manifesto offers hope. It purports to be a scientific basis for hope that capitalism can be defeated. It describes economic laws that supposedly operate independent of human will and make proletarian (working class) victory inevitable. Despite the fact that Communism has been discredited, Marxism still has profound influence in the world because it seems to offer hope for change. The problem with the Manifesto is that it points to a false hope, which has been the downfall of all social movements guided by Marxism. The Marxist source of hope in economic laws is attractive mainly to those who do not see the revolutionary significance of ordinary peoples' lives and struggles. The Manifesto says nothing of the values of working people, either peasants or industrial workers. Instead Marx and Engels, with their "materialist" view of history, see economic development as the basis of progress and capitalism as a historically progressive force. They judge various classes not in terms of human relationships or values but by whether they represent further economic development. The Manifesto believes peasants to be a backward class and declares that the bourgeoisie, by driving peasants off the land and increasing the urban population as compared with the rural, has "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life." Similarly, the Manifesto sees the ruling elites, not the working class, as the source of enlightened ideas: "entire sections of the ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat...These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress." Communism is false hope devised to rule over the people. It's the opposite of what it says it is They are actually good points and I agree with some, particularly Marx's lack of respect for the peasants. That's why I'm not a Marxist, among other reasons. But that does not discredit communism, particularly seeing as anarcho-communism is the mainstream strand of the ideology. Also, this does not show how communism was implemented by any of the fascist regimes you keep talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 18, 2017 20:26:58 GMT -5
I'm tapping out. I don't want to be lectured on how I'm a stupid American with no world view.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 20:32:24 GMT -5
I'm tapping out. I don't want to be lectured on how I'm a stupid American with no world view. Shame, I really had the feeling you were about to give historical examples of Cuba or the USSR implementing communist ideology. Nah, just kidding, that's impossible.  |
|
|
|
Post by jordan71421 on Oct 18, 2017 20:39:46 GMT -5
I'm tapping out. I don't want to be lectured on how I'm a stupid American with no world view. Shame, I really had the feeling you were about to give historical examples of Cuba or the USSR implementing communist ideology. Nah, just kidding, that's impossible. And I was hoping you were going to enter the bounds of reality but that's impossible when you're an anarcho-communist. Enjoy never having the ability to own private property and participating in a free market. Enjoy having no drive or sense of gain or loss, because that's already been determined for you! Quite contradictory to the belief your free of state, I might add. You disrespect all those lives affected by anarchy/socialism/communism and you should be ashamed of yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 20:41:53 GMT -5
Shame, I really had the feeling you were about to give historical examples of Cuba or the USSR implementing communist ideology. Nah, just kidding, that's impossible. And I was hoping you were going to enter the bounds of reality but that's impossible when you're an anarcho-communist. Enjoy never having the ability to own private property and participating in a free market. Enjoy having no drive or sense of gain or loss, because that's already been determined for you! Quite contradictory to the belief your free of state, I might add. You disrespect all those lives affected by anarchy/socialism/communism and you should be ashamed of yourself. Will do!  |
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 18, 2017 20:47:11 GMT -5
Just so people know, I completely support the abolition of private property and the dissolution of the market. Also, nothing about how your life would be lived would be "determined for you" in a society based on equality and autonomy of course. And the casualties of socialism and anarchism are overwhelming the anarchists themselves being murdered by surrounding states, like that pesky Soviet Union for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by funhouse on Oct 19, 2017 0:25:48 GMT -5
Well that was a good night's sleep, let's see if they're still discu...
14 PAGES?!?!
I don't know how you guys do it. My guess is that you are both addicted to cocaine.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Oct 19, 2017 0:28:38 GMT -5
Well that was a good night's sleep, let's see if they're still discu... 14 PAGES?!?! I don't know how you guys do it. My guess is that you are both addicted to cocaine. I stayed up watching Louis Theroux documentaries  |
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5