What's Communism?

[Redshield]

Because the most famous Communists like Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Marx were all black guys, right?

Those 4 men are often incorrectly labeled with one broad brush under the misnomer of "Communist", but their ideologies were very different.

Marx in particular could not be called a "Communist" in the sense that you understand it in the West. He was indeed an Anarchist through and through. When he and Engels drafted the Communist Manifesto (which was not a wholly original work by the by), the entire point of "Communism" was Anarchy. A stateless, classless society. If you were to boil the entire work down into one idea it would be that.

Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky etc were all very much statists (each with quite differing ideologies), & the definition of communist that they left us with is 100% opposed to Marxist ideals. To lump them all under one definition as communists is to not understand their ideologies.

I've read your posts in several threads about anarchist principals, you should read Marx. For instance, did you know that he was a free trade advocate because he felt that regulation empowered the state, and that free trade empowered the people? He was a big fan of Adam Smith and quite influenced by Smith's writings. When you get a chance, find his speech in Brussels ca. 1948 regarding Repeal of the Corn Laws in England and his praise for the triumph of the free market, with the ultimate goal of the freest markets to destroy the state..

I could go on, but this perhaps isn't the proper setting? Any anarchist would be remiss not to study Marx with the understanding that comparing him to these statists, Stalin in particular, is an historical disservice. If you choose to call Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky Communists, then by that definition Marx is clearly not. If you defer to the Marxist idea of Communism, then the Soviets were anything but.

 

[jacky8]

I can see that, but I would just say that no human perfectly represents his ideology. Most ideologies are studies in contradiction anyway.

Was Marx a hypocrite?

Sure.

But isn't Romney? Obama? Bush? The Pope? The Dalai Lama?

The one nice thing about Abrahamic religion, is that we're not supposed to confuse the kingdom of God with the kingdom of men. Somehow both Christians and Atheists got that one very wrong.

Damn.

So Christians and atheists both got it wrong.

And 90% of wickedfire members are batshit crazy, and idiots?

And you hate the western governments which allow tons of poor people like your family to be equal citizens.

And you said you love Sharia

And the Dalai Lama is a hypocrite?

What a fucking loud mouthed idiot you are. Clearly tells a lot about the hate-fed upbringing you had

You belong back to the slum in India where you came from. Puh-lease

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Because Jesus wrote the Bible.

Pretty sure you missed the point, but then again it was a weak analogy so - my bad.

When you get a chance, find his speech in Brussels ca. 1948 regarding Repeal of the Corn Laws in England and his praise for the triumph of the free market, with the ultimate goal of the freest markets to destroy the state..

Found a link here: On the question of free trade - fascinating read. I knew Marx was in essence an anarchist but I was unaware of his positions on free trade for some reason. Good shit.

...comparing him to these statists, Stalin in particular, is an historical disservice. If you choose to call Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky Communists, then by that definition Marx is clearly not. If you defer to the Marxist idea of Communism, then the Soviets were anything but.

Exactly. I've always half-jokingly referred to Marx as a Marxist (clumsy I know), because he has so little in common with the leading "communists" of the 20th century. Reminds me of the joke - "Isn't it an amazing coincidence that Lou Gehrig died from Lou Gehrigs disease?"

 

[guerilla]

I don't really care either way, it just seems like you flew off the handle a bit there.

I don't think you know me well enough to know when I fly off the handle.

It happens very rarely, and almost never over mindless shit people say on internet forums.

 

[cassius]

Pretty sure you missed the point, but then again it was a weak analogy so - my bad.

I was just giving you shit, I know what you meant. I just see no reason to contribute anything inherently valuable to this thread as that would upset the trend.

 

[CCarter]

Hellblazer vs Guerilla

Special guest referee lukep.

Ringside Announcer Commentary:
CCarter: The problem is Guerilla's attempting to use facts and logic against Hellblazer. The problem is Hellblazer's a Glenn Beck fan, whom are known to be impervious to thought...

<<Audience watches closely>>

 

[guerilla]

Those 4 men are often incorrectly labeled with one broad brush under the misnomer of "Communist", but their ideologies were very different.

I wasn't making an ideological point, but a racial one.

A stateless, classless society.

That's utopianism, it has nothing to do with anarchism.

Read the Communist Manifesto, then get back to me about how Karl Marx was for free markets. lol

Found a link here: On the question of free trade - fascinating read. I knew Marx was in essence an anarchist but I was unaware of his positions on free trade for some reason. Good shit.

Marx was not an anarchist, and he didn't support free trade.

It's embarrassing how you guys will contribute to a topic without understanding the subject matter. You don't see me in threads about guns, or PPC, or tv shows or shit I know nothing about.

Exactly. I've always half-jokingly referred to Marx as a Marxist (clumsy I know), because he has so little in common with the leading "communists" of the 20th century.

*sigh*

I'm not sure if you guys are trolling or serious, but between hellblazer and you/redshield this thread is so depressing.

 

[hellblazer]

between hellblazer and you/redshield this thread is so depressing.

Why do you continue to whine like a bitch? Because I didn't tell you what communism is?

When I talk about communists like Obama and the people behind him, I'm talking about people who want absolute power and have no moral compunctions about it. The Chinese communists come to mind. Putin comes to mind. The people behind Obama come to mind.

There's two personalities to communism: what it professes to be and what it really is. Sorry if I didn't want to play some stupid game where I give you the second definition, then listen to you piously read off the first one. Communists are liars. They use the first definition to further the ends of the second. Nothing they say is what it is. They hide their tyranny and evil under the guise of compassion and decency.

But even worse, Obama is propelled and bankrolled by pure communists, pure evil, and you're going to see it very, very soon. Because they're going to lose the election, but they've been working for 40 years to get their man into this position of power. They literally can't let him go. They need him to finish the job. And so every one of you retarded, brainwashed fags, liberals, libertarians, and other assorted nutjobs is going to see what I've been talking about out in the open. There's no way Romney's getting in, even though he would win a fair election. They're going to pull something, pre-election, post-election, I have no idea. The foreign entity controlling him doesn't care about you or anyone else here. They will burn the position and the power to the ground to further their own ends. Obama is the last president.

Am I gonna come back here for validation and compliments when what I'm telling you comes to pass? No, because the opinions of retards is meaningless. I post here to warn the people who still have an open mind, even if I have to wade through all of the drones to do it.

 

[lukep]

Why do you continue to whine like a bitch? Because I didn't tell you what communism is?

When I talk about communists like Obama and the people behind him, I'm talking about people who want absolute power and have no moral compunctions about it. The Chinese communists come to mind. Putin comes to mind. The people behind Obama come to mind.

There's two personalities to communism: what it professes to be and what it really is. Sorry if I didn't want to play some stupid game where I give you the second definition, then listen to you piously read off the first one. Communists are liars. They use the first definition to further the ends of the second. Nothing they say is what it is. They hide their tyranny and evil under the guise of compassion and decency.

But even worse, Obama is propelled and bankrolled by pure communists, pure evil, and you're going to see it very, very soon. Because they're going to lose the election, but they've been working for 40 years to get their man into this position of power. They literally can't let him go. They need him to finish the job. And so every one of you retarded, brainwashed fags, liberals, libertarians, and other assorted nutjobs is going to see what I've been talking about out in the open. There's no way Romney's getting in, even though he would win a fair election. They're going to pull something, pre-election, post-election, I have no idea. The foreign entity controlling him doesn't care about you or anyone else here. They will burn the position and the power to the ground to further their own ends. Obama is the last president.

Am I gonna come back here for validation and compliments when what I'm telling you comes to pass? No, because the opinions of retards is meaningless. I post here to warn the people who still have an open mind, even if I have to wade through all of the drones to do it.

Oh that was classic hellblazer right there. Thank you for that sir... I am actually starting to look forward to these tirades!

I wish I had time to respond to each and every one of the many, many fallacies you have just posted, but alas, I have fingernails to clip tonight, and probably something around the house that needs cleaning.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Marx was not an anarchist, and he didn't support free trade.

Everything Marx ever wrote was geared towards the abolition of the state. The entire point of Marxism is to eventually have a society without rulers. If that's not Anarchy, then I'm not sure what is.

 

[guerilla]

When I talk about communists like Obama and the people behind him, I'm talking about people who want absolute power and have no moral compunctions about it. The Chinese communists come to mind. Putin comes to mind. The people behind Obama come to mind.

Genghis Khan comes to mind. Adolf Hitler comes to mind.

Nero and Caligula come to mind.

You still haven't explained what Communism is.

Because I didn't tell you what communism is?

You can't tell me because you're ignorant. You throw around the word Communism as an epithet without having done any research into what is and is not Communism.

And worse, you won't even admit your profound ignorance.

I mean, no one takes you seriously, so have at it. I need guys like you to make me look smart, so really, I would be worse off if you developed intellectual honesty or integrity.

 

[guerilla]

Everything Marx ever wrote was geared towards the abolition of the state. The entire point of Marxism is to eventually have a society without rulers. If that's not Anarchy, then I'm not sure what is.

You need to read some more Marx. It's miserable, hopeless work, but start with Das Kapital.

Btw, Marx hated people like you. And his work encouraged the death of 10s, if not 100s of thousands of people like you.

He was no anarchist because he didn't believe in a free market, he believed in a stateless labor society without capital or technology.

Saying he was an anarchist is like saying someone who believed in a world without humans is an anarchist, or someone who thinks that we should all ride magical unicorns for eternity on rainbow superhighways is an anarchist. Don't confuse the absence of the state with the absence of rulership.

The only rational anarchy, is one without violence. Marx didn't support non-violence or ethics. He simply expected the absolute state to be rejected and for no one to ever replace it.

Don't even get me started on his support for socialism or his inability to articulate an intelligent economic argument. He was somewhat good on class theory, but he confuses the bourgeoisie with anyone with capital (savings) or in a position of management/ownership.

 

[cassius]

The only rational anarchy, is one without violence. Marx didn't support non-violence or ethics. He simply expected the absolute state to be rejected and for no one to ever replace it.

Nothing disregarding violence is rational. Those that won't kill will always be at the mercy of those that will. That is a fact of life. Any rationale excluding violence is utter fantasy. That is not to say I necessarily disagree with your other positions, but, "without violence" precedes an impossibility. Humanity is violent. If there is any absolute characteristic of life on Earth it is violence.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Btw, Marx hated people like you. And his work encouraged the death of 10s, if not 100s of thousands of people like you.

I'm not a Marxist, so I couldn't give a fuck less. Plus, he's dead, and I'm not so fuck him twice. Just pointing out that you are still ignorant of the differences between communism (as implemented by Lenin and especially Stalin) and marxism. I believe you called it a "distinction without a difference"...but I'm the one that needs to read more Marx lol

Marxism is a pipedream with no real world applications so it's right up your alley.

He was no anarchist because he didn't believe in a free market, he believed in a stateless labor society without capital or technology.

derp.

 

[cassius]

The disconnect here is in how you are defining communism. Some are defining communism as Marx/Engels intended and others are defining communism as it has been practiced (or so claimed). You are never going to agree because you are arguing definitions, not positions. You may as well be debating right and wrong. A similar circumstance would arise if one were to use the United States as a debating point for or against true democracy. True communism, as defined by Marx/Engels, will never and can never be established.

 

[guerilla]

Nothing disregarding violence is rational.

Violence is irrational unless you would like to try and substantiate it.

Those that won't kill will always be at the mercy of those that will.

Nonsense. We don't live in a dog eat dog world. Look around here at all the neckbeard losers who wouldn't last 2 minutes in serious combat with another human being.

That is a fact of life.

Whenever someone asserts an unsubstantiated opinion as a "fact of life" ...

Then again, you'll fit in quite nicely around here.

Any rationale excluding violence is utter fantasy.

You're mixing domains. Maybe read more of my posts, and then come at this.

I'm not saying we can have a world without violence, I am saying that the initiation of violence cannot be defended ethically.

If there is any absolute characteristic of life on Earth it is violence.

How much violence do you undergo daily? I am guessing, zero. Guess it isn't so prevalent, is it?

The disconnect here is in how you are defining communism. Some are defining communism as Marx/Engels intended and others are defining communism as it has been practiced (or so claimed). You are never going to agree because you are arguing definitions, not positions. You may as well be debating right and wrong. A similar circumstance would arise if one were to use the United States as a debating point for or against true democracy. True communism, as defined by Marx/Engels, will never and can never be established.

Oh, but but but but I just read an article about Marx on free trade and it's soooo interesting!

 

[Moxie]

That's utopianism, it has nothing to do with anarchism.

Discussing whether or not communism is utopianism would be diverting into another topic, one which is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Marx's communism is anarchy.

Don't confuse the absence of the state with the absence of rulership.

And who are the rulers under Marx's communism and where does he advocate for them?

The only rational anarchy,

"Rational" is an adjective that has no bearing on the definition of anarchy.

Marx didn't support non-violence

This is another diversionary topic, but Ron Paul (who you claim is an anarchist) used to support the death penalty and wants the US military enforcing the border with Mexico.

There have been serial killers who were anarchists. Redefining "anarchist" to exclude serial killers would be the fallacy of narrowing the definition.

He simply expected the absolute state to be rejected and for no one to ever replace it.

i.e. anarchy

 

[7thAmigo]

It's a failed political system!

 

[cassius]

Violence is irrational unless you would like to try and substantiate it.

Are you talking about ethics or rationale? To deem an action as rational a goal must be established. There are an infinite number of goals for which violence would be a rational, perhaps not ethical, course of action.

Nonsense. We don't live in a dog eat dog world. Look around here at all the neckbeard losers who wouldn't last 2 minutes in serious combat with another human being.

Of course we do. The potential for violence factors into every decision we make, directly or indirectly. I'm not talking about individuals fist-fighting each other. Violence comes in many forms and scales.

You're mixing domains. Maybe read more of my posts, and then come at this.

Not at all. You said the only rational anarchy is one without violence, but how can an impossibility be rational?

How much violence do you undergo daily? I am guessing, zero. Guess it isn't so prevalent, is it?

Little to none. However, there is always a potential for violence factored into my decision making. This is true for anyone. If there were no potential for violence against me I can assure you my daily activities would be very different. Both you and I are at the mercy of those who are capable of violent action against us whether that action is taken or not.

 

[hellblazer]

You still haven't explained what Communism is.

Communism is a form of government where the means of production are owned by "the people", which inevitably means the government. He divided society up into two absurd classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie was supposed to be the Richie Riches, profiting off of the suffering of the poor, poor oppressed workers(proletariat).

Marx thought that capitalism would inevitably collapse. He thought socialism was a transitional stage and that communism was inevitable. Since that actually never happened in real life, the disgusting communists have been busy sabotaging capitalism in order to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This supposed inevitable transition was supposed to happen by a revolution of "the people". Of course they noticed quickly that people kinda preferred capitalism and weren't about to change shit. So in most countries, it was small psychotic bands of violent individuals who facilitated this "revolution".

That's the basic theory. But it's all bullshit. It's propaganda. In reality, evil people who long for absolute power use the ideology of communism in order to deceive people into becoming slaves. It's never occurred as it is theorized because it was never meant to. It was always designed as a blueprint for setting up a global dictatorship. You will NEVER see a working communist nation, unless it is something like the early Christian communities, which isn't like the Marx's theory at all because it was completely voluntary and not connected to government at all.

There's two types of adherents to communism. The first is the person who actually believes it. That's Obama. The second is the one who knows it's all bullshit, but uses it to gain absolute power. That's the people behind Obama.

But there is a similar trait running through both types of people and that is the willingness to do anything to achieve their goals. The first type of communist casts aside morals because he thinks the coming utopia is worth it. The second one never had any morals in the first place and only cares about power. The second type is the murderer, the ruthless kind who always ends up at the top, like Chavez, like Putin, like Castro.

You didn't really deserve an answer because you sound like a complete elitist jackass, but there ya go, sweetie.