PDA

View Full Version : The revolution is never going to happen



SicN Twisted
12-31-2004, 02:48 AM
Weather you're an anarchist, a socialist, a marxist-leninist, a marxist, a anarcho-marxist, an anarcho-socialistic, or simply a progressive, you're all together under the same ideology and the same outcome, although you may believe in different methods of achieving it. All of us radical leftists, whether we believe that an authoritarian Stalinist leader will save us by murdering every dissident, or that individual freedom and lack of government is the only way to achieve it, we're all striving for a classless society. We're all fighting for peace, equality, and an end to oppression. Most forms of leftism, including my own, believe that such a society can be achieved through revolution.

I've come to the sad revalation that such a revolution will never happen. There may me a coup in which power is usurped by people who believe in our ideal, and governments may change, but in the scheme of things, there will be no real change - the utopia we dream of will never come into existence, because human duality doesn't allow that. The individual is our greatest ally and our worst enemy. Even if we can eradicate capitalism, the bourgeois, and even the State itself, there will be conflict that no reeducation or revolutionary fervor can destroy. We can change governments, but we can't destroy greed. We can't destroy selfishness, - it's inherent within us, and any revolutionary knows that while progressive change is imminent, the revolution will never happen.

wheelchairman
12-31-2004, 05:08 AM
Greed and selfishness are by-products of the current system. They won't be destroyed by the next great social upheaval, but they will most certainly be changed to a different form. I think that's all we could want and that's all we could need.

What I fear is that socialism and communism can never be achieved without a world revolution. And a world revolution is unlikely in any event that it's even pointless to talk about. Stupid Trots.

RXP
12-31-2004, 08:03 AM
You only figured that out?

Satanic_Surfer
12-31-2004, 09:37 AM
Those were good chosen words.
Greed is a part of the human mind and cannot be existed, but it can be used to achieve positive things too, that is not to forget!
The Bible and right wing liberals seem to promote an image of that it would be impossible, wich is not true.
United we stand a chance.
But united, we are many, but not everyone.
Therefor a revolution is laying far away in time right now. Because we accept people as they are, we do not want to change their personal opinions!
Not all the way, but partly Karl Marx was right when he stated that as Capitalism grows, the militant opposition grows.
Some people of "our kind" have, in the US, voted for Bush in belief that he will grow Capitatalism bigger than it can handle... to even be.
I think the more freedom loving left wing, such as the Anarchists, stand a greater chance of getting their opinions through, at least when thinking of what the world looks like today. Because Anarchists believe in direct action and want to make a change, whenever opportunity comes, and opportunity is everywhere.

RXP
12-31-2004, 09:39 AM
Also A revoultion will happen in the future, but it won't be a people's revoultion. The robots will take control ala SkyNet in the Terminator series.

wheelchairman
12-31-2004, 09:43 AM
And wars will be fought in the skies, or at least on very high mountains?
To steal a joke from the Simpsons.

I think the next major social upheaval will happen in large parts of the 3rd world, which will throw the 1st world into chaos. What the results will be, I do not know.

RXP
12-31-2004, 09:50 AM
Soon as AI hits the world things will start getting weird.

nieh
12-31-2004, 10:06 AM
I could've (and possibly have) told you that.

Leo_ARG
01-01-2005, 08:56 AM
I believe in evolution, people will get smarter, to say it simply and they will realize that you don't need a government if you are educated and have a good re-habilitation center of crazy people.

Sorry for saying it this way, in spanish I would say differently and a lot more specific and more complex.

Satanic_Surfer
01-01-2005, 11:53 AM
Not even education is needed for that, only understanding.

the_GoDdEsS
01-01-2005, 02:03 PM
I believe in evolution, people will get smarter, to say it simply and they will realize that you don't need a government if you are educated and have a good re-habilitation center of crazy people.

Sorry for saying it this way, in spanish I would say differently and a lot more specific and more complex.

People won't ever learn. Unless some disaster or catastrophe teaches them and they have to start all over again.

NOAMR
01-02-2005, 03:53 AM
Well, that's indeed the problem. I also think we could evoluate into responsable, freedomloving people, but there should be something to make it possible. Right now, if u just do what the law says you to do, without thinking whether it's right or wrong, you'll survive better then if you think about the esthetical thing. And so we wont evoluate. But I think, when you make less laws (for the beginning abolish the laws who say what u should do with your own life), the law-followers will have to learn and began the think for themself, or they would make some mistakes. And so, by evoluating the system, people will also have to evoluate, just to survive. And the evolution is happening allready: first, we just had dictators and kings who sayed what we should do, now, we allready have democracy. The next logical step seems to me: anarchie.

wheelchairman
01-02-2005, 04:18 AM
Evolve into a freedom loving people? We've been evolving for millions of years, I think that's a stupid theory. Freedom must be taken from those who would not share it.

NOAMR
01-02-2005, 06:14 AM
Well, your right, evolution from people, animals... take some time, but social/moral evolutions are much faster. If people have to be responsable and think for themself to survive, they will, and the small group that wouldn't, won't survive. How many years has it taken to evoluate from an absolut kingdom into a good-working democracy? Not that long, if u look to it with evolution eyes: it hasn't been a million years or something. And I don't think the step from democracy to anarchy would be that bigger.

wheelchairman
01-02-2005, 06:22 AM
Well it certainly won't work. You have a very utopian view of the world. If you think the rich would ever let that happen. Unless of course you are talking about a form of anarcho-capitalism.

NOAMR
01-02-2005, 06:37 AM
Well, I just meant that in theory, anarchy would be possible, if the people want it, just like democracy came, even tho the rich leaders didn't want it off course. After the Congres Of Wenen, democracy was almost gone again and everything was like before, cuz that leaders, but the people were stronger than that small group, and democracy has come. Another thing we could do is just genetically manipulate the rich and so on, so that they aren't egoistic anymore, and would care about the society and the people :D . Well, exally, we should do it with all people :eek: . The problem is that people are egoistic. But if we evoluate into a society where egoists aren't welcome, we will evoluate into a society with people who wonna do something for the society. And well, it's allready happening, there's allready a big social pressure, you can't just do what you want anymore. Well, dunno if this is okay too :D .

wheelchairman
01-02-2005, 06:42 AM
I assume you take a lot of ritalin.

If you have a rich class, you'll never have anarchism, it's in their interest to destroy your anarchism. Let's face it, for the rich, modern society is better than anarchism.

I doubt they'd agree to be genetically manipulated, I also doubt it's possible to genetically manipulate someone into being less greedy. There is no greed gene, it's a by-product of modern society.

NOAMR
01-02-2005, 07:03 AM
Lol, u say controversial things. First, u say, they will always be greed, that's human, we should just use them for positivive things, and than u say it's a product of society. I think they is a gene of greed (or a couple), some are more greedy than others. It's to survive: how more greed we have, how more we will have, how better we will have it. Animals are greedy too. Off course, the rich wouldn't let that happened, but we could do it without they know, like say it's for an operation or something ;) .

And what you say about the rich wouldn't let it happen, they wonna destroy anarchism, off course, but because the rich don't want it, it won't happen? The rich doesn't want social help and so on for the poor, and it's there. We live in a democracy, the people decide. And off course, they are controlled by the rich, media, politicans who all want power and can convince people for every stupid idea, but still, if the people want it, it's possible.

Izie
01-02-2005, 07:14 AM
Well, I just meant that in theory, anarchy would be possible, if the people want it, just like democracy came, even tho the rich leaders didn't want it off course. After the Congres Of Wenen, democracy was almost gone again and everything was like before, cuz that leaders, but the people were stronger than that small group, and democracy has come. Another thing we could do is just genetically manipulate the rich and so on, so that they aren't egoistic anymore, and would care about the society and the people :D . Well, exally, we should do it with all people :eek: . The problem is that people are egoistic. But if we evoluate into a society where egoists aren't welcome, we will evoluate into a society with people who wonna do something for the society. And well, it's allready happening, there's allready a big social pressure, you can't just do what you want anymore. Well, dunno if this is okay too :D .

Do you honestly believe that "genetically manipulating" anyone into anything could ever be right, no matter what purpose it serves? I somehow don't see how that would make it better than killing all of the people who disagree with you. That's all assuming it's actually possible to genetically manipulate people into something like that, and I honestly don't think it is. Wheelchairman already pointed out why.

And destroy egoism? Make it not welcome? How exactly? You know a person who is completely not egoistic? What does it mean to not be egoistic anyway?

In my opinion, it's already egoistic to say we should all be non-egoistic. Then again, maybe your definition of egoism is different from mine.

NOAMR
01-02-2005, 07:38 AM
Well, off course I don't think we should geneticly manipulate people, exally, I was just joking. Well, at least it's more peacefully than kill everyone you disagree with. But yeah, you change people personality, so exally, it's too killing. Than, you should do it with feutus, baby's, who don't have a personality yet. I know, you think it sounds scary, and I'm not for it really too, but you should think about what we really are. We're just atoms, moleculs. Our personality are just genes, together with some influence from are environment. Are genes are just the average from the genes of our parents. Genetical manipulating of people would solve a lot of problems, but people can't accept they aren't much really, so it won't happen really. And well, it would be also boring, we should just get the perfect people, so they wouldn't be many differences, and in what way are we different from robots then. Well, in what way are we different from robots right now? We can think, you say, but robots can also think, it's just programmed. But we are also programmed, by our genes and society.

With destroying egoism, I meant that right now, if you're really the biggest egoist who don't give a shit about anyone else, and so act like that and only do things for yourself, the people won't do anything for you too, and you won't live a nice life. So off course, to survive, we do something for someone else, so that he will do something back fo us. And yes, that's also egoistic, but it's serving the society by being egoistic. And that's maybe too what Weelchairman meant with 'turning negative greed and so on into something positive'. So you're right, you can't really destroy egoism (well maybe by genetic manipulation:)), but you can turn it into something good.

Izie
01-02-2005, 07:55 AM
I'm prone to giving the environment a much bigger influence. The simplest proof being that human kids who were raised with extremely little/no human contact don't even appear human. And no, not in the "they don't follow the social rules" sense. In the "they can't learn a language or ever interact in a complex way with other humans" sense. There is much more to humans than just atoms.

Which is also why we're different than robots. We do not just think. We also have needs, desires and emotions.

And programmed by society? Not exactly, then we would all be the same again. The society has a great impact on human life, but you can't honestly say that we're programmed. Or that nobody can be different.

On the point of egoism we agree, with the exception that people don't always do things just so that others would do things for them. That would imply no emotions and absolutely no connection among people. And that's also quite unrealistic.

NOAMR
01-02-2005, 11:07 AM
Well, are needs, desires and emotions are there too to survive, they come there by evolution. Evolution is exally: first they are all species with different genes, but the ones with the weakest, don't survive, and so, after some time, you only got a strong specie. But not everyone got really the same genes yet, sometimes, they are differences, and that can be good are bad. If it's good, that specie will have kids, and after a while everyone got's that quality. And that's too with emotions and so on: we love someone so that we could transit are genes, we are afraid for things so that we won't destroy ourselfs by doing it, we are unhappy when our child or something dies... And yeah, your right, we are all different. I think the first reason for that is, that we also all live a different life, and so we should have different capacities. In poor countries where they live from agriculture, it's important to be strong, so that they can work good on the land, but here, in welfare counties, it's important to be smart, to get a diploma. So that makes allready some differences by evolution. The second reason is, that we don't have to do that much anymore to survive. Animals always have to pay attention for enemy's and have to be strong enough to eat other animals. So the weakest dies. But people don't have to be that strong anymore, we get money from the government if we can't work, and everyone has his capacity where he can do some job with. So we are exally just all evoluated in a different way: some are smart, some are strong... And that's perhaps the only way we can let this complex society run. Animals are also all different, they use other ways to survive.

And exally, what we think, are also just atoms: nerves connect with each other. Every experience, everything we see, feel... makes a connection with nerves, atoms. And well, who say robots don't have needs... They are programmed to do something, and they will do anything to succeed that. It will probably also be programmed with something like: don't kill yourself. And if he have to do something, what isn't straight with another thing, one of the two will be done. And well, you could say that that are also emotions, cuz are emotions are also just to survive.

Izie
01-02-2005, 12:27 PM
Debate to be continued somewhere else, as this is way off topic.

SicN Twisted
01-02-2005, 01:52 PM
All anarchists believe that in order for pure anarchism to be achieved, humans would have to reach a period in evolution where they love freedom and understand that freedom isn't something any institution has the right to give or take from someone, it's instrinsic. For that reason, most anarchists, like communists, believe in a transitional period of collectivized production, where workers associations will manage themselves, and be banned together by trade unions. The difference is anarchists still believe that even in the transitional period, there cannot be any sort of centralized government, because the workers associations will take the place of government.

RXP
01-02-2005, 02:04 PM
All anarchists are fucking stupid idoits who are deluded.

Satanic_Surfer
01-02-2005, 04:20 PM
I dont want to say much here... there are some important Darwinist views upon evolution here mixed into Marxism, and it seems to be going quite the right direction in opinions here. There's not much to say than that the intellectual people here seems to agree.
You can easily see that if you actually read the messages.
Then of course... we've got some more pathetic mainstreamers who claim that "all Anarchists" are dumb fucks.... of course he's enrightened to have his own opinion... but it's not very smart of him to hand it out where people only will laugh because of it... since i do think he meant it in an offending way.
Just thought to tell you people that.

SicN Twisted
01-02-2005, 04:21 PM
Most anarchists are smarter then RXP.

Satanic_Surfer
01-02-2005, 04:33 PM
Most people who promote the keeping of the Capitalist system, usually would get along pretty well with him, though.

RXP
01-03-2005, 07:01 AM
Most anarchists are smarter then RXP.

Really? I've yet to see any proof. You're all fucking stupid who are deluded idoits who believe in the most stupid things. I'd rate you guys up there with fuckin religous nuts or those crazy muslims.

Satanic_Surfer
01-03-2005, 09:17 AM
Hehe, i would like to see YOU describe Anarchism and Islamism in infromative ways without curses and other time taking unnecessary ways of expressions.
Go ahead!

RXP
01-03-2005, 09:36 AM
cf a text book for that shit.

Satanic_Surfer
01-03-2005, 09:57 AM
Thought so... you need a text book to explain the values of other people.
My opinion is that you were given a large brain by mistake.

RXP
01-03-2005, 10:41 AM
You think I can be arsed to sit here and explain Islam and what it means to people or to me? It's been done a thousand times better than me in about 100,000 journal articles, essays, websites, blogs, usenet posting etc. cf that shit I'm not about to re-type what's been typed a thousand times in an attempt to look smart like most of the postings in the politics forums, specifically by PolSci students.

FYI: I could easily do it for Islam but not for anacacism. From what I've read of anacarcism it's comical and doesn't deserve any time wasted on it. Islam, however, is a different matter.

I don't have the time to waste reading into things that mean nothing and will get me no where. Unlike most people here I actually seem to have something to do which takes up most of my time so I can't waste time reading into things that matter not; all my time is taken up reading things from my course. If I had unlimited time I could sure pretend to be smarter than everyone by typing out a load of bull shit but that ain't my style. And I'd probably do it better than everyone here because I am naturally a good debator/argumentative essay writer.

We all need text books to explain the value of things to other people fucko. Don't tell me you have experience of every single culture, country, etc. in the world. We all reason, analogise, and think in terms of other people's views.

I think everyone knows when I say anarcists are deluded what I mean. Well those who have noticed my postings in the past, my political stance, my philosphy on life. It's like I say the "EU is gay" all the time btu I have dedicated posts in the past to proper, rigorus examination of the pros/cons of the EU.

And I wasn't given a brain by anyone. It was just there when I was born to quote Troy "I was born and this is what I am"

Eat a dick fag.

Satanic_Surfer
01-03-2005, 11:31 AM
"not your style", hehehe yeah you're certainly full of "style", maaan! ;)

RXP
01-03-2005, 11:42 AM
I'm full of lots of things, blood, water, muscle, organs, cum etc.

ATOM_01
01-04-2005, 05:49 AM
Anarchism means a lot of different things to a lot of different people RXP, you can't just go and say that they're all a bunch of stupid deluded idiots. Maybe you see them that way, but it's definately not appropriate to describe them like that because it's goddam inaccurate and false.

RXP
01-04-2005, 06:32 AM
1) For a range of people to be encompassed into a single 'movement' or 'group' or 'belief system" there needs to be some unifying factors that they all except. Otherwise they are not a group/movement/belief system: they're just random people.

2) I have a problem with these unifying factors, that is "the core beliefs/claims of anarcahism". I believe they are stupid.

3) If ALL anarachists accept the core claims of anarcachism, they are all stupid.

My logic is flawless.

FYI: I don't even remember what anarchists belive in anymore, I just like to argue. But anyone who believes in something that will never happen is stupid and deluded. Now Sic himself accepted that it won't ever happen so by my own logic I have to concede he is not stupid and deluded, merely stupid for believing in such a crazy system.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 07:18 AM
Well I would say that anarchism is almost an exception. There is a world of difference between anarcho-capitalism than anarcho-marxism.

Also, I would say that anyone who thinks the current system is permanent, is more deluded than any anarchist.

RXP
01-04-2005, 07:35 AM
The current system is a result of social darwinism. If you deny that then you are just wrong IMHO. I'm not saying it will be around forever, because I firmly belive there will be a revoultion but of a technolgical kind where AI takes over and workers become useless. There will be unrest as a result but it will nonetheles be quahsed.

Basically I believe that social darwinism means certain people will get into certain positions in the world to influence. These are not gonna be overturned by whoever the marxists or anarchists think because they don't cut the musturd.

Heck the captalist system has survived huge economic shocks, two world wars, a cold war and many other things. No other system has (to my knowledge). I just can't see past it. I simply can't see how the socially weaker are ever gonna take control.

Of course here I have a limited understanding, but from what I do understand of alternative methods it involves the weaker (well socially) taking control. I simply can't see it. The only way it happens is in developing countries, but soon enough they change into liberalised capitalist systems because that's where 'political evoultion' takes it.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 07:56 AM
Weaker and stronger are all relative terms.

I have not read much about social-darwinism and so the system it is based on for me is rather sketchy, I am guessing that it's the theory of evolution (based on survival of the fittest) applied to social conditions?

I wouldn't say capitalism is a result of this. Capitalism is a result of the bourgeois wanting to free themselves from feudal economic constraints (protectionism and all that) by overthrowing and replacing the system. It was the result of a build-up of several social conditions, including manufacturism, which resulted in new kinds of thought processes, such as enlightenment and whatnot.

Technically the capitalist system has only existed for 200 years or so. That's not particularly long for a system, and it has always been crumbling on the edge. The fact that large percentages of the world were not capitalist, for about half this period, is an example.

Socialism involves not giving power to the meek, this isn't a judeo-christian mysticism. Socialism goes from the standpoint that the ruling class is a self-serving class, that it works for it's own interests, and it's own interests are to exploit as much people as possible for as much gain as possible. What socialists want to do, is have the masses take power from the bourgeois violently or not.

To believe that the bourgeois are the cream of the crop, is to believe that money is a measure of strength. When it's simply, and often a measure of the society you were born into.

RXP
01-04-2005, 08:03 AM
But the fact of the matter is in our countries, the capitalist system is entrenched yeah? So the way to get 'high' in it is to be born into the right system, to have money, and to be smart. Therefore, thsoe who are born into it are likely to have the same belief system, the same upbrining etc. They will rise to the top and create policy, jobs, legislation that keep their power intact.

I don't really see how socialism will work. A revoultion has to BUILD on a previous system (or build over). It doesn't happen in some pre-socialtial agency state, where the slate is clean. It has to overpower the entrenched system. And the only way to do that is from within. And those with your extreme views are unlikely to get into positions of power because the reason you have those views is because you weren't brought up like the people in power.

See what I mean? It's a self contained system, which will be extremely difficult to break out of. I said it's survived huge economic shocks, two world wars a cold war and lots of other stuff.

The workers will become useless soon enough, do you not agree?

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 08:08 AM
Oh I agree, the ones who've gained from the system will be the first to defend and support it.

Capitalism was most certainly not built upon the feudal system. It is a complete upheaval of a country-side based economy into a city-based economy. It was a complete transition from monarchic sovereign power to representative democracy.

Democracy was considered an extreme view as well. The fact of the matter is, when ever there is an economic crisis, the people will always start heading towards the left, the most recent examples being in France and Germany in their recent local elections. And most certainly in South America where almost every election, regional or national, has returned huge support for socialist leaders.

RXP
01-04-2005, 08:09 AM
Oh yeah I haven't read much into social darwinism bar how it worked in Hitler's government and though people like OW Holmes. So I ain't no expert.

I should really look into it more.

RXP
01-04-2005, 08:10 AM
Oh I agree, the ones who've gained from the system will be the first to defend and support it.

Capitalism was most certainly not built upon the feudal system. It is a complete upheaval of a country-side based economy into a city-based economy. It was a complete transition from monarchic sovereign power to representative democracy.

Democracy was considered an extreme view as well. The fact of the matter is, when ever there is an economic crisis, the people will always start heading towards the left, the most recent examples being in France and Germany in their recent local elections. And most certainly in South America where almost every election, regional or national, has returned huge support for socialist leaders.

Indeed, but the far left? Wall Street Crash didn't cause the yanks to go crazy and vote in some nutter. But of course you can come back to the Hitler thing.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 08:12 AM
Indeed, but the far left? Wall Street Crash didn't cause the yanks to go crazy and vote in some nutter. But of course you can come back to the Hitler thing.

Actually, that was the year when Eugene V. Debs got more support than any other socialist at any point in American history. You'd be surprised what the Wall Street Crash did. Businessmen applied to be workers in the soviet union after they lost everything.

Had things gotten worse, then socialism would've gotten more popular as time went on.

RXP
01-04-2005, 08:14 AM
How the do you know all these facts? You do it for uni or something?

Seriously I wanna know! It's hard arguing with someone when your blind to most of the evidence.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 08:40 AM
No, I don't even go to Uni. Ironically I go to a business school where I study Accounting, Marketing and Foreign Languages. I learned all these facts from books I read in my free time.

RXP
01-04-2005, 08:43 AM
Why choose such a gay course? Should have done law, politics or something to that effect at uni from what I know of you.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 08:47 AM
I'm an American immigrant in Denmark, and this is an international course in English which will get me what I need for acceptance into University. So all I got to do is maintain good grades, and the rest is easy. I am still in the Danish equivalent of high school.

RXP
01-04-2005, 08:53 AM
Oh see highschooler, thought you were older.

wheelchairman
01-04-2005, 09:39 AM
The Danish system is older. Also I was held back a year when I immigrated because I needed to catch up with the language.

zemanel
01-07-2005, 05:56 AM
Dude.. You got it wrong (the guy that started the post).. Marxism, is social science. It's all objective... The reasons Why it is possible, and why it is INEVITABLE were written 2 centurys ago...

SicN Twisted
01-07-2005, 01:57 PM
Marxism was attempted and it failed because of it's authoritarian nature.

wheelchairman
01-07-2005, 02:01 PM
He's talking about analysis not practice.

zemanel
01-07-2005, 02:54 PM
Marxism isn't authoritarist... Have you ever read the "Comunist party manifest" ?? Communism is about science, and logic. Communism begins at the only True thing known to man. Everything is matter, that's what dialetic materalism is based upon and it is in what marxism is based too... And one thing is marxism and the end it wants and other thing is the path people choose to achieve the goal.. The path will allways be socialism.. But there are a lot of possible socialist conceptions. some authoritarian some not.. Take Mao-Tse-Tung's regime it wasn't at all authoritarian.. The problem was that he died too young.

Leo_ARG
01-07-2005, 05:01 PM
Not al communist are authoritarians. Trotsky would have done better than Stalin, that's for sure.

pOpe
01-07-2005, 05:26 PM
I'm new in this threat, and I only red the first post and the ones who are in this page... are you talking now about comunism??

I don't think that comunism is a solution for the society, 'cause if I work a lot and I can do many money thanks about my work, why I have to divide my money and my confort (?welfare? I dont know the word)??

I know and I think that it helps people, but china is comunist, and many people are poor, cuba is comunist, and is poor, URSS was comunist... and now Russia is a rich country, but people who live there are poor.... I think that comunism = poor

Pd: I don't understand many things that I wrote, jaja, I'll try to explain better in the next post (I love talk about politic, but in english is so difficult for me... please, make an effort to understand me, 'cause I do it to understand you ;) )
________
KTM RC8 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/KTM_RC8)

PunkRockIbanezer
01-07-2005, 05:30 PM
I'm new in this threat, and I only red the first post and the ones who are in this page... are you talking now about comunism??

I don't think that comunism is a solution for the society, 'cause if I work a lot and I can do many money thanks about my work, why I have to divide my money and my confort (┐welfare? I dont know the word)??

I know and I think that it helps people, but china is comunist, and many people are poor, cuba is comunist, and is poor, URSS was comunist... and now Russia is a rich country, but people who live there are poor.... I think that comunism = poor

Pd: I don't understand many things that I wrote, jaja, I'll try to explain better in the next post (I love talk about politic, but in english is so difficult for me... please, make an effort to understand me, 'cause I do it to understand you ;) )

I agree...and also, in china your only supposed to have a certain number of kids, and i you have anymore, they kill your kids. communism isn't the right way to go...and why in the hell would you want to give up your freedoms? being able to go and do what you please and being able to own your own land??? it just doesn't make sense...the people in cuba are trying to escape. the people in china are trying to escape. the people in the ussr were trying to escape. have you ever met one person who moved from the usa to some communistic country? and if they did, did they enjoy their new country? of course they didn't because no one likes communism once they have lived under it!

wheelchairman
01-07-2005, 06:34 PM
ugh another one of these topics.

1. China isn't communist. China is state-capitalist.
2. Trotsky, while I do so like Trotsky, was most certainly totalitarian.
3. Cuba is communist, it has the highest number of doctors per citizen, teachers per student, and according to the UN the smallest difference between rich and poor. I would say Cuba is great, and most Cubans like Cuba, I've been there. I've been to China too, it's less than spectacular.
4. Russia isn't nearly as rich as it was under the USSR.

Communist countries often have economic problems because of their geo-historical surroundings. Not because it's a bad system, for a latin american country Cuba is doing spectacular, especially with the embargo. Most countries that even implement partial communist economic policies make large strides.

PunkIbanezstereotypeguy, most people in Russia want communism back, the party has large popular support. Most Cubans are more terrified of their crazy right-wing nutjob relatives in Miami and prefer Castro. Soon in Berlin there will be a march to honor Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemborg, and a march for socialism. Also in the 1930's there were several people who emigrated to the USSR from USA, many artists lived in communist countries as well, Ernest Hemingway loved Cuba.

Nicole
01-07-2005, 08:31 PM
I'm glad you realised that such a student dream is far from possible.

Revolutions only ever seem to happen when people are hungry and feeling repressed by the government. Take away everyones food and you might produce a spark. That was my observation when studying Modern History.

I would argue this topic but there are people here who know way more than I do about this kind of thing.

pOpe
01-08-2005, 08:18 AM
ugh another one of these topics.

1. China isn't communist. China is state-capitalist.
2. Trotsky, while I do so like Trotsky, was most certainly totalitarian.
3. Cuba is communist, it has the highest number of doctors per citizen, teachers per student, and according to the UN the smallest difference between rich and poor. I would say Cuba is great, and most Cubans like Cuba, I've been there. I've been to China too, it's less than spectacular.
4. Russia isn't nearly as rich as it was under the USSR.

Communist countries often have economic problems because of their geo-historical surroundings. Not because it's a bad system, for a latin american country Cuba is doing spectacular, especially with the embargo. Most countries that even implement partial communist economic policies make large strides.

PunkIbanezstereotypeguy, most people in Russia want communism back, the party has large popular support. Most Cubans are more terrified of their crazy right-wing nutjob relatives in Miami and prefer Castro. Soon in Berlin there will be a march to honor Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemborg, and a march for socialism. Also in the 1930's there were several people who emigrated to the USSR from USA, many artists lived in communist countries as well, Ernest Hemingway loved Cuba.

On the one hand you said "and according to the UN Cuba has the smallest difference between rich and poor" ... well, 'cause 90 % of people are poor... On the other hand you speak like Castro is the best person in the world, do you know that Castro is the 2? dictator of the world who has more money??? and he is a communist?? JAJA, he is a politic ( = false and villain), he is like hussein or arafat (all of these people were rich, and his countries are poor)

Comunism is now an utopia, like anarchy.... I belive in a free world, and I think that one day people won't have to submit to leaders or laws... but at the moment, comunism is not a solution
________
Extreme q vaporizer (http://extremevaporizer.net/)

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 08:39 AM
On the one hand you said "and according to the UN Cuba has the smallest difference between rich and poor" ... well, 'cause 90 % of people are poor... On the other hand you speak like Castro is the best person in the world, do you know that Castro is the 2║ dictator of the world who has more money??? and he is a communist?? JAJA, he is a politic ( = false and villain), he is like hussein or arafat (all of these people were rich, and his countries are poor)

Comunism is now an utopia, like anarchy.... I belive in a free world, and I think that one day people won't have to submit to leaders or laws... but at the moment, comunism is not a solution
How can 90% be poor, when there is no rich? Rich and poor are relative terms. And I've been to Cuba personally and seen that they aren't starving or any such nonsense you might hear.

Now give me a link to where it says that Castro is the second richest dictator in the world.

pOpe
01-08-2005, 09:08 AM
Sorry, I don't know any link to you, I read this in newspapers (and this newspapers are all leftist (or lef-wing, I don't know the word), who are agree with stop the embargo, like zapatero)

I agree with liberate cuba, but I don't agree that Castro is there 'cause he is a dictator... I mean that Cuba has to have elections, I'm saying that people has to decide their future, and Castro has to go unless people vote him in a free elections

And I don't know if Communist countries often have economic problems because of their geo-historical surroundings, I only know that many communist countries have economic problems

and when you said "How can 90% be poor, when there is no rich?" before I wanted to say that 90% is poor... but the rest are not rich.... I think that in Zaire has the "smallest difference between rich and poor", 'cause they are all poor... dont you?
________
MERCEDES-BENZ M272 ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M272_engine)

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 09:19 AM
Sorry, I don't know any link to you, I read this in newspapers (and this newspapers are all leftist (or lef-wing, I don't know the word), who are agree with stop the embargo, like zapatero)

I agree with liberate cuba, but I don't agree that Castro is there 'cause he is a dictator... I mean that Cuba has to have elections, I'm saying that people has to decide their future, and Castro has to go unless people vote him in a free elections

And I don't know if Communist countries often have economic problems because of their geo-historical surroundings, I only know that many communist countries have economic problems

and when you said "How can 90% be poor, when there is no rich?" before I wanted to say that 90% is poor... but the rest are not rich.... I think that in Zaire has the "smallest difference between rich and poor", 'cause they are all poor... dont you?

If you can't find it, then it doesn't matter what kind of papers you read.

Do you understand how the Cuban parliament works? They have free and open elections within marxist lines. The party does not have a majority, it is movements that are mostly voted in, different unions, women's unions stuff like that.

If you don't know the history and geographical situation of the economies of the countries you are criticizing, then you're a dumbass who shouldn't be criticizing.

And Zaire has very very rich people in it. Do you know much of Africa and the nations inside it? They have a huge divide between rich and poor, probably the largest in the world.

pOpe
01-08-2005, 09:24 AM
And Zaire has very very rich people in it. Do you know much of Africa and the nations inside it? They have a huge divide between rich and poor, probably the largest in the world.

Jejeje, sorry, Zaire it's a bad example, you are right :p


But you have to open youre eyes xD!! Castro is a dictator, and he couldn't be a good person when he sent to prision many people about their ideologist
________
Honda ha-420 hondajet (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_HA-420_HondaJet)

zemanel
01-08-2005, 09:26 AM
Sorry but Cuba isn't Comunist... Cause comunism only exists when society is perfect and there are no opressive institutions (state).. Actualy the first condition is part of the second. That's the condition for you to have comunism... In Cube there is a state so it aint comunism. It's a progressist socialism...


"I belive in a free world, and I think that one day people won't have to submit to leaders or laws... but at the moment, comunism is not a solution"
Dude wake up that's actualy one light definition os comunism... :P

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 09:55 AM
Sorry but Cuba isn't Comunist... Cause comunism only exists when society is perfect and there are no opressive institutions (state).. Actualy the first condition is part of the second. That's the condition for you to have comunism... In Cube there is a state so it aint comunism. It's a progressist socialism...


"I belive in a free world, and I think that one day people won't have to submit to leaders or laws... but at the moment, comunism is not a solution"
Dude wake up that's actualy one light definition os comunism... :P
Don't try and teach me Marxist theory. Of course Cuba isn't communist, I just find it pedantic to need to separate between socialist and communist societies in every single debate.

p0pe- Of course he's a dictator. Socialism was never truly about representative democracy at all costs. I think the existence of CDR's make the state far closer to the population than in any other nation in the world today, and that in my mind is one of the things that I think make Cuba more democratic than states like USA.

NOAMR
01-08-2005, 09:57 AM
Heu, I tought that was anarchism? What is communism then? I tought it was equallity, no difference between poor and rich. Or is this socialism again?

I think Cuba is a pretty good country, and I don't think they are many poor people. It could be when he just sayed that they isn't much difference between poor and rich, but he also sayed that they are the most doctors and teachers their. And if I'm not wrong, the healthy thing is completely free their. And I don't think their isn't enough food and so on their, so why should they be poor( and if their isn't enough food and so on, it's cuz the embargo)?

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 10:06 AM
Heu, I tought that was anarchism? What is communism then? I tought it was equallity, no difference between poor and rich. Or is this socialism again?

I think Cuba is a pretty good country, and I don't think they are many poor people. It could be when he just sayed that they isn't much difference between poor and rich, but he also sayed that they are the most doctors and teachers their. And if I'm not wrong, the healthy thing is completely free their. And I don't think their isn't enough food and so on their, so why should they be poor( and if their isn't enough food and so on, it's cuz the embargo)?

There is enough food, and education and healthcare are all free.

Socialism: Worker's state controls and defends the socialist country, leads the class struggle until there is no class, and gradually withers away.

Communism: the product of the socialist transition, no state, everything would be organized into a system of small communes.

NOAMR
01-08-2005, 10:17 AM
Hm, that definition of communism is kinda the same as how many anarchists see Anarchism. Small communes, who produce for their own, and crime would be controlled by the society: everyone knows each other, so if someone commit a crime, they would try to stop him, and he wouldn't be really popular.

wheelchairman
01-08-2005, 10:35 AM
Anarchism is generally a socialist movement. That's why Bakunin was part of the 1st international.

Leo_ARG
01-08-2005, 11:40 AM
Weelchair, I've read Bakunin's God and the State and he said there that communist were a step behind anarchism because they couldn't yet shake off the idea that a State has to exist.So really, from what I've read is when the workers have the power, and they are the state that has the power.

In anarchism that power doesen't exist, because it's des-centralized.

Hope you understand.By the way I'll try to find a quote of this that I am saying, probably by Malatesta too.

zemanel
01-08-2005, 11:54 AM
That is Why I insiste on pointing the diferences between the path and the goal.. Cause if you don't put them clear the debate will be a mess, cause everyone will confuse socialism with comunism..... Comunism and anarchism are ultimatly the same they only difer in the ways to get to the same goal... Bakunine criticised the process that marxists defended.. The proletarian dictatorship... that's why he says it is step behind... he was talking about the path and not the goal.....