The Centralized Shenanigans thread.
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:27pm
Thread Topic: The Centralized Shenanigans thread.
-
I promised one.
There won't be as much spam from me anymore.
Now for the first point...
...communism is, kinda, a naturally occurring state of humanity.
Your family doesn't charge you to live with them, right? You get what you need. The work is split by who can do what best and sometimes by who wants to do it.
Things are common property of the whole family.
The difference between your family and true communism is the fact that in true communism, you all would have an equal say in how things are done instead of there being a "head of the household."
Unless I grew up in a communist family. Then I don't know what your family is like. -
what makes democratic communism "true"?
-
As opposed to totalitarian "communism" aka Stalinism, I'm presuming you're talking about?
Communism is defined as a classless, stateless, moneyless society. The bureaucracy created by types such as Stalin isn't communism (although it can be taken as an attempt to transition towards it). Trotsky addresses this pretty well, I think it's from The Revolution Betrayed but I'm not sure:
"It is time, my listeners, it is high time, to recognise, finally, that a new aristocracy has been formed in the Soviet Union. The October Revolution proceeded under the banner of equality. The bureaucracy is the embodiment of monstrous inequality. The revolution destroyed the nobility. The bureaucracy creates a new gentry. The revolution destroyed titles and decorations. The new aristocracy produces marshals and generals. The new aristocracy absorbs an enormous part of the national income. Its position before the people is deceitful and false. Its leaders are forced to hide the reality, to deceive the masses, to cloak themselves, calling black white. The whole policy of the new aristocracy is a frame-up."
Hence, even if it (Stalinism/totalitarianism) were an attempt at creating communism, it branched off significantly enough that it begins to stagnate the progress towards communism, also known as a degenerated workers' state. -
*The bureaucracy is a degenerated workers' state, not communism.
-
well this and Stalinism yes, but also every variant in between.
and while we're at it what IS communism, as a defined term?
If it's only when the application of theory works as it's fantasized to work, then there has never been an example of "truth" in society at all, and more then likely never will be. -
-
-
It's Thanksgiving, sadly aka the day before Black Friday.
That nice day when everyone gathers in a mob to raid a store, so that they can get discounts which are probably compensated for by the company by not paying workers what they deserve.
Where we're willing to give our lives for a few dollars but not for a worthy cause.
On the opposing side, we have several criticisms of capitalism, and many are displeased by the fact that workers are underpaid or that commercialism and materialism are taking over the holiday.
There are thousands, who, to some extent, oppose capitalism.
Now, let's think about if all of these were united into a revolutionary force. The mob, determined to stop at nothing for what they desire. The anti-capitalist critics, with ideas for a better future.
But they are two separate things- the mob just wants objects, the critics an improved system.
Let's give them a common goal. Open access to all kinds of resources, no need to worry about saving money, and no concern over objects. An improved system, where capitalism and the materialism associated with it do not exist.
This goal may be summed up as the abolition of private property.
The abolition of private property brings with it the eradication of consumer culture and ravenous materialism. When everyone can have what they need and no one cares about their ownership over materials, the need and want for such aberrations as Black Friday are eliminated.
And when we can unite as a revolutionary force, it will have to be nothing less than the abolition of private property that is the final goal. Nothing less can truly and totally solve the problem. Only the abolition of private property and with it, money, for anything else will preserve the ideas which lead us into systems like what we have right here.
Let's do it. -
"While I was stimulated by the Communist Manifesto, I was exhausted by Das Kapital. But I found myself strongly drawn to the idea of a classless society, which, to my mind, was similar to traditional African culture where life was shared and communal . I subscribed to Marxs basic dictum, which has the simplicity and generosity of the Golden Rule: From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.
-Nelson Mandela -
Mandela has the distinction of having won both the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Order of Lenin. That's pretty damn cool if you ask me.
-
IHLAOY NewbieThe abolition of private property brings with it the eradication of consumer culture and ravenous materialism. When everyone can have what they need and no one cares about their ownership over materials, the need and want for such aberrations as Black Friday are eliminated.
Hang on a minute, I'm not sure I see the connection here. How does taking away a person's possessions stop them from wanting more possessions? That's simply not true, history as shown time and time again that people aren't content having simply what they 'need' and instead start to focus on what they 'want,' and as long as people are focused on what they 'want' materialism and consumer culture are sure to follow.
And removing private property is its own can of worms in itself, as I've mentioned before. (Yadda yadda, sweat on his brow, etc.)
In short, how does the removal of ownership prevent a person from wanting to own something, or exploiting those who do? -
TROTSKY
-
When everyone can have what they need.
Everything belongs to everyone, might be a more positive way to put it?
laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate post I know. -
I saw a Stalinist (they used "Marxist-Leninist," but that is a term invented by Stalin, and they defended Stalin) denounce Trotskyism as a "petty-bourgeois" ideology because it calls for international revolution, thus delaying the revolution as it cannot be done in one country.
Trotskyism argues that the revolution must be international because the new socialist state would be alone in a world full of capitalist states. The economies would be radically different and difficult to cooperate with, and the socialist state would be in effect isolated. This could lead to further economic inequality, creating conditions for the old order to be replaced (and look what happened to the Soviet Union). Not to mention the enemies of the new state would be tremendous. The socialist state would need a strong base to survive long enough to create communism.
This is the main argument I've heard for internationalism anyway.
As for your Stalinist bureaucracy, it leads to a degenerated workers' state, a condition for the bourgeois order to return and which makes progression to socialism much harder if not impossible. The bureaucracy is a new aristocracy, where members of the State are a new ruling class (in the Soviet Union, they even had more wealth than everyone else- living comfortably in a time of war and crisis. much communist such economics so marxist).
Sounds a little bourgeois, right? Creating the conditions of capitalist restoration? Ruling class taking advantage of workers? -
I do in fact believe in a collective society where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few- this does not mean I believe in a nameless drone collective, where individuals have no hopes of their own. No, I believe that we all have a place in society. Individual aspirations can and should serve the collective interest, but the collective interest is that of all of individuals combined.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
