are you communist?

[cratehorus]

You fell exactly into the kind of sterotyping I had thought you would

Useless bable, you cannot back up any of your claims and simply through arround worthless accusations.

which claims would you like me too back up mein fuhrer?

besides the USSR wasn't communist it was socialist (says so right in the name) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Maybe, but let's not forget that the Nazi party had "socialist" in its name too, and that was an extreme right wing party. National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Socialism in the modern context is the application of general welfare programs, such as universal healthcare, unemployment support, etc.

hitler added the socialist name in order too attract many socialists conservatives and foolish communists too his party under the advice of then future propaganda minister joseph goebells he was in fact fascist but I will give you credit in saying the name aloned oes not qualify them as a purely socialist government, the fact is the USSR was modeled after stalinism which is marxist-leninist interpreation of communism, it was in fact "socialism in one country", but the country itself was not the "be all end all" communism it's merely portrayed that way, besides most modern communist do not consider stalin a communist anymore than they do franklin delano roosevelt

[Something completely different]

which claims would you like me too back up mein fuhrer?

climate change is a result of the greedy capitalist exploiting nature and his own enviroment against the will of the people

women are considered the broodmare's for a militaristic capitalist government to expoit it's own people for monetary gain

racism is merely a tool used by the capitalist too divide populations stir up motivation for war and the exploitation of foreign governments and ditract the popualtion with a scape goat as to why all their problems exist (ie. germany and the jewish genocide) when in fact most of societies problems are caused by their government

sexual rights are defined when a capitalistic government declares it's own population that state's private property in order too define what kind of nation it is. If you are not your state's property then you do not need them to define your sexual behaviour

....see it does work... most of your friends where probably just too impatient to explain it too a... frothing at the mouth german... who is a 3rd generation member of the reichstag

[jstrodel]

I was an anarchist as a teenager, I became a liberal socialist in college and now I am sort of a liberal republican who is somewhat sympathetic to syndicalism or some other non-capitalist organization that does not require massive redistribution of wealth.

I think that free market capitalism could be a vehicle for creating non-capitalist organizations. I think you can see this in organization like the Salvation Army. I believe it is wrong for the government to redistribute wealth past a certain amount. I am all for taxing the rich, but I am also suspicious of forcing people to accept the goods that a liberal state produces and the cultural effects of this.

I am interested in the philosophy of Alaisdair MacIntyre (himself a former Marxist and now a Thomist but still somewhat anti-capitalist). I agree with both his critique of liberal modernity (that I have read) which applies to Communism as well, the vacuous foundations of Marxist philosophy leave the Marxist state with a lack of a common, shared culture or vision of what the Marxist individual or nation should be like. The economy hardly substitutes for this. I agree with some remarks that Cornell West Made about Marxism as well, decrying its lack of humanity.

I voted for Romney in the last election but I still feel like a leftist radical, so I would say I am 1/4th Communist.

[TaraJo]

The irony is that socialism and communism gets popular when capitalism gets too powerful and corrupt. Remember, there wasn't a communist revolution in Russia until after the general public was being crushed by corrupt capitalists. If you're paying attention, you'll see something similar here: people are talking about socialism and communism and collectivism like they're good ideas, largely because we're sick of Wall Street bankers, big corporations and plutocrats ruling over us by buying up influence in Washington. I mean, it's easy to say that since communism didn't work in the USSR, it won't work now, but it's equally easy to say that the USSR wasn't really communism as communism was intended to be. The bourgeois used to be private land owners but under communism, they were replaced by the state which was equally problematic.

Personally, I say going too far towards either communism or free market will be problematic. Both have advantages and disadvantages. If we insist on being all for one, we're accepting all the negatives of that one as well. If we accept that both have positive traits and negative traits, we can utilize the best aspects of both while minimizing the negative aspects. Me, I see society having strong, free enterprises that are strictly regulated by the government and certian, vital services have a government option to set a standard that the private sector has to meet to stay competitive.

[Something completely different]

I will annoy you right there Tara.

There never was a "communist revolution" in Russia, but a military coup!

The Febuary revolution was the true russian revolution in which a public uprising ended almoust 500 years of absolute monarchy and established a republic.
It was in October when under Trotzky the armed groups seized several key points of western russian cities.

[TaraJo]

I will annoy you right there Tara.

There never was a "communist revolution" in Russia, but a military coup!

The Febuary revolution was the true russian revolution in which a public uprising ended almoust 500 years of absolute monarchy and established a republic.
It was in October when under Trotzky the armed groups seized several key points of western russian cities.

Nah. It doesn't annoy me at all. In fact, I'm glad to learn more about what happened. It does explain a bit better why Russia didn't turn into the workers paradise it was supposed to have been; the military doesn't tend to care much for the working class.

[cratehorus]

climate change is a result of the greedy capitalist exploiting nature and his own enviroment against the will of the people

This has been shown already by their track record – for example, the EU has had a similar scheme in the past which was unsuccessful because governments set over-generous emission levels. Secondly, it relates to the class interests of our government, which rules on behalf of the capitalists and has business interests at its heart. Businesses do not want climate change to be taken seriously as it would damage their profits – for example the director of Easyjet recently said that governments should not over-react to climate change.

Capitalist governments have neither an interest in nor the ability to challenge such companies or to rationally control the market. The most extreme example is the link between the US government and the oil companies it subsidises, which are making a fortune out of destroying environment. Such companies aren’t going to sit back and let their market share be taken over by renewable energy and, reflecting this, the government has put negligible investment into researching this. The UK government’s agenda is the expansion of nuclear power, but this is a dangerous undertaking within capitalism since the necessary security and environmental measures are expensive and reduce profits, and the capitalists do not take them seriously http://www.socialistrevolution.org/ideas...te-change/

women are considered the broodmare's for a militaristic capitalist government to expoit it's own people for monetary gain

Engels emphasized that the rise of industrial capitalism meant progress for women because it brought them into the social workforce. Along with the socialization of household tasks, this is a precondition for liberation. Under capitalism, however, women remained oppressed because they bore the burden of family labor even when drawn into social production.

Not until the coming of modern large-scale industry was the road to social production opened to her again -- and then only to the proletarian wife. But it was opened in such a manner that, if she carries out her duties in the private service of her family, she remains excluded from public production and unable to earn; if she wants to take part in public production and earn independently, she cannot carry out family duties. (Engels, The Origin of the Family, chapter 2)
Engels repeated what he and Marx had stated in the Communist Manifesto: capitalism was destroying the proletarian family through its growing exploitation of women in the workplace. The impact of early industrial capitalism contributed to this belief. As well, Engels (like Marx) expected capitalism's early demise; he gave insufficient weight to offsetting tendencies which partially delayed the process of proletarianization and served to buttress the family. Engels discusses the proletarian family largely in terms of its internal relations.

To illustrate, he distinguished the proletarian from the bourgeois family in terms of male-female relations:

Sex-love in the relationship with a woman becomes and can only become the real rule among the oppressed classes, which mean today among the proletariat -- whether this relation is officially sanctioned or not. But here all the foundations of typical monogamy are cleared away. Here there is no property, for the preservation and inheritance of which monogamy and male supremacy were established; hence there is no incentive to make this male supremacy effective. What is more, there are no means of making it so. Bourgeois law, which protects the supremacy, exists only for the possessing class and their dealings with the proletarians. The law costs money and, on account of the worker's poverty, it has no validity for his relation to his wife. Here quite other personal and social conditions decide. And now that large-scale industry has taken the wife out of the home onto the labor market and into the factory, and made her often the breadwinner of the family no basis for any kind of male supremacy is left in the proletarian household, except, perhaps, for something of the brutality toward women that has spread since the introduction of monogamy.
It is true that the proletarian family is not based on property. But to imply that the family could only be relevant as a vehicle for the transmission of inherited property overlooks the specific economic role of the working-class family under capitalism and many of the elements of women's oppression thus engendered. http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/womenPR34.html

racism is merely a tool used by the capitalist too divide populations stir up motivation for war and the exploitation of foreign governments and ditract the popualtion with a scape goat as to why all their problems exist (ie. germany and the jewish genocide) when in fact most of societies problems are caused by their government

The racism that pervades capitalist society and infects the working class is not a "natural" thing, nor is it simply the product of ignorance or lack of education. Racist attitudes (like homophobia, sexism and nationalism) are fostered within the working class by the myriad educational and ideological processes of bourgeois society, and are passively accepted (when not enthusiastically promoted) by the class-collaborationist parasites who dominate the unions, and other mass organizations of the working class.

Karl Marx once observed that labor in a white skin would never be free while labor in a black skin was branded. For the working class to advance its own interests, it must champion the cause of all the oppressed. Workers who imagine that they benefit from the relatively greater oppression faced by other sectors (blacks, women, immigrants, etc.) forge their own chains.

Racism and nationalism are also used to prepare the working class for new military adventures and slaughters. Racist sentiments are being stirred as the pressure of international inter-imperialist competition heats up. Xenophobia is on the upsurge across the globe, as the supposed leaders of the working class in every nation throw in their lot with "their own" rulers against foreign competitors. The treatment of Japan in the capitalist mass media in both Europe and America is crudely and transparently racist. Japanese workers are dismissed as mindless robots—oblivious to the finer things in life and pathetically loyal to their companies. The Japanese capitalists are no better with their depiction of North American workers as lazy and indigent, and their tendency to attribute the decline of U.S. capitalism to race mixing.

Exposing the idiocy and vileness of racist ideas is both important and necessary. But ultimately racism cannot be eradicated simply through debate or education. The ideology of race is an inextricable component of the historical development of this exploitative economic system. The fight against racism is therefore organically connected to the revolutionary struggle to up root the capitalist social system, which has created and perpetuated it, and to create an egalitarian socialist world order in which cooperation, not competition, is the norm. Only in such a society, based on the rational planned organization of production sufficient to meet the essential needs of all, will every human being, regardless of color, gender, or nationality have the opportunity to develop themselves to the fullest. Only under socialism will racial prejudice and discrimination be eliminated once and for all. http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no12/no12c...acism.html

sexual rights are defined when a capitalistic government declares it's own population that state's private property in order too define what kind of nation it is. If you are not your state's property then you do not need them to define your sexual behaviour

Engels explains in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:


“According to the materialistic conception, the determining factor in history is, in the last resort, the production and reproduction of immediate life. But this itself is of a twofold character. On the one hand, the production of the means of subsistence, of food, clothing and shelter and the tools requisite therefore; on the other, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the species. The social institutions under which men of a definite historical epoch and of a definite country live are conditioned by both kinds of production: by the stage of development of labor, on the one hand, and of the family on the other. The less the development of labor, and the more limited its volume of production and, therefore, the wealth of society, the more preponderantly does the social order appear to be dominated by ties of sex. However, within this structure of society based on ties of sex, the productivity of labor develops more and more; with it, private property and exchange, differences in wealth, the possibility of utilizing the labor power of others, and thereby the basis of class antagonisms: new social elements, which strive in the course of generations to adapt the old structure of society to the new conditions, until finally, the incompatibility of the two leads to a complete revolution. The old society, built on groups based on ties of sex, bursts asunder in the collision of the newly-developed social classes; in its place a new society appears, constituted in a state, the lower units of which are no longer groups based on ties of sex but territorial groups, a society in which the family system is entirely dominated by the property system, and in which the class antagonisms and class struggles, which make up the content of all hitherto written history, now freely develop.” (Preface to the First Edition, 1884)

Capitalism, like other class societies, has developed social institutions which, as Engels explained, are conditioned by the economic infrastructure. As mentioned above, Marxists call this the superstructure. The individual family itself would be considered part of the superstructure; although it predates capitalism, it was a component of it from the start. It serves the function of allowing society to raise the next generation and allows privately owned property to be passed down to future generations. The state is another example. Like all class societies, capitalism needs an army, police, courts and prisons to protect their property from foreign nations and from the majority of the population of its own country who own little or nothing. Without a state, why would the majority put up with oppression and exploitation? The ruling class needs these institutions to maintain their wealth and privileges.

Religious institutions, which play a role in maintaining ideological conformity do provide some social and economic support to people ravaged by capitalism (charity). But at root, they defend the socio-political status quo, and have reinforced the male domination of woman and an entire moral code limiting sexuality to the male-female nuclear family. http://www.marxist.com/usa-lgbt-movement...uality.htm

....see it does work... most of your friends where probably just too impatient to explain it too a... frothing at the mouth german... who is a 3rd generation member of the reichstag

there you go

[xXUKAtheistForTheTruthXx]

what are your opinions about communism?

Authoritarians who use a book

[Something completely different]

Every single thing you posted isnt in any way capable of being backed up by facts or studies.


It is all prophecies and mindconstructions which are painted over reality, yet are not a conclusive representation of reality itself.

[Question Mark]

I will annoy you right there Tara.

There never was a "communist revolution" in Russia, but a military coup!

The Febuary revolution was the true russian revolution in which a public uprising ended almoust 500 years of absolute monarchy and established a republic.
It was in October when under Trotzky the armed groups seized several key points of western russian cities.

Nah. It doesn't annoy me at all. In fact, I'm glad to learn more about what happened. It does explain a bit better why Russia didn't turn into the workers paradise it was supposed to have been; the military doesn't tend to care much for the working class.

He's right, and frankly it would have difficult for the Bolsheviks, because communism was much better represented in nations like Germany, France, and Italy, where industrialisation was going strong. What's more, Lenin had been exiled to Switzerland before the war, and only managed to train-ride back in time for the Bolshevik revolution.

Some believe it was the Czar's fault for heading the war himself. The populace blamed him for the failure, where as he could have stayed behind and the generals would have taken the fall.