|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:12 am
A Nightmare of Eden a nightmare ofEDEN I chose not to answer in your poll so there. 3nodding
Ignore Soviet, he doesn't understand that individualism is not the same as freedom.
As for me, I think everyone, even slaves, is free technically in that unless they are being physically forced, it is just their fear of punishment that makes them follow orders. That doesn't make it any less wrong however.
I feel as long as an action doesn't harm/violate rights nonconsensually, there's no reason to deny the right to take that action if you so wish. Sorry, that came out a bit confusing.
[ Simple answer: If it ain't hurting anybody, shouldn't be illegal. ]
At the end of the day having control over your own life is freedom, not the cheap freedom to spend (ha) or exert power over others.Blah blah, same old poison, spreading your "individualism". Individualism is a bourgeiose concept, something those Filthy Anarchists promote but dont realize its severity.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:10 pm
That isn't individualism... It is just an idealist conception of freedom: As long as you believe you are free, you are. Regardless of material circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:09 pm
Comrade Robson A Nightmare of Eden a nightmare ofEDEN I chose not to answer in your poll so there. 3nodding
Ignore Soviet, he doesn't understand that individualism is not the same as freedom.
As for me, I think everyone, even slaves, is free technically in that unless they are being physically forced, it is just their fear of punishment that makes them follow orders. That doesn't make it any less wrong however.
I feel as long as an action doesn't harm/violate rights nonconsensually, there's no reason to deny the right to take that action if you so wish. Sorry, that came out a bit confusing.
[ Simple answer: If it ain't hurting anybody, shouldn't be illegal. ]
At the end of the day having control over your own life is freedom, not the cheap freedom to spend (ha) or exert power over others.Blah blah, same old poison, spreading your "individualism". Individualism is a bourgeiose concept, something those Filthy Anarchists promote but dont realize its severity. a nightmare ofEDEN
Wow, Rob, when did you turn into an a**?
neutral
Funny how all of you seem unable to recognize the difference between individualism and individuality. Individualism is putting the individual ahead of the community. Individuality and personal freedom can work alongside communism.
Communists are against individualism. Including myself.
There, congratulations, consider yourself educated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:14 pm
Comrade Robson A Nightmare of Eden a nightmare ofEDEN I chose not to answer in your poll so there. 3nodding
Ignore Soviet, he doesn't understand that individualism is not the same as freedom.
As for me, I think everyone, even slaves, is free technically in that unless they are being physically forced, it is just their fear of punishment that makes them follow orders. That doesn't make it any less wrong however.
I feel as long as an action doesn't harm/violate rights nonconsensually, there's no reason to deny the right to take that action if you so wish. Sorry, that came out a bit confusing.
[ Simple answer: If it ain't hurting anybody, shouldn't be illegal. ]
At the end of the day having control over your own life is freedom, not the cheap freedom to spend (ha) or exert power over others.Blah blah, same old poison, spreading your "individualism". Individualism is a bourgeiose concept, something those Filthy Anarchists promote but dont realize its severity. a nightmare ofEDEN
Funny, too, how you simply insult anyone you disagree with. And don't I remember you admitting that anarchism was just ill defined and Communism could be anarchist?
Or was that just my imagination? 4laugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:04 am
Eden: 1, you could have just edited your first post with the comments in your second. 2, I think he was being sarcastic, mocking Tank and his silly conception of communism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:20 am
Gracchvs Eden: 1, you could have just edited your first post with the comments in your second. 2, I think he was being sarcastic, mocking Tank and his silly conception of communism. So whats your conception of marxist communism that is soo radically different from my own? Communism is an advancement of culture/ideology that is globalized into the general culture much like capitalism has. Where we really seem to differ is your notion of revolution from down up rather then up down. Also your notion of a civil war with as Lenin describes as lazy 1st world workers who would defend there standard of living rather then go for a bloody revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:00 am
Lazy first world workers? Does that mean the only barers of change in the imperialist centres are the petty bourgeois intelligentsia? If so, I would like to tell you to 1: Lurk moar 2: Read more Lenin, he says nothing of the sort, in fact he says that the world revolution will begin in the weakest link of the imperialist chain, ie. one of the weaker imperialist states or one of the stronger colonial states (currently looks like India or South Africa, but that could change any minute) 3: I would like to ask you, in the most polite way posible, to STFU. I am in no way a petty bourgeois in general or the intelligentsia in particular. By family and and practice, I am a proletarian, even if I would prefer to be a teacher one day. To say that is to say, in short, that I don't exist, and yet... Here I am. Quote: Communism is an advancement of culture/ideology that is globalized into the general culture much like capitalism has. No. It isn't. You should know by now. Communism as an ideology seeks to institute the rule of the working class and collectivise the economy under its control. Any advanced culture/ideology that occur will be as a side effect. They are not the point of communism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:26 pm
I dont remember reading that in any of Lenin's works, however if by some chance i missed it Lenin probably promoted that only because Russia was a backwards country. From my understanding Marx called for The most advanced countries to overthrow bourgeiose rule. Its almost impossible to see it happening effectivly the other way around. A Nightmare of Eden Comrade Robson A Nightmare of Eden a nightmare ofEDEN I chose not to answer in your poll so there. 3nodding
Ignore Soviet, he doesn't understand that individualism is not the same as freedom.
As for me, I think everyone, even slaves, is free technically in that unless they are being physically forced, it is just their fear of punishment that makes them follow orders. That doesn't make it any less wrong however.
I feel as long as an action doesn't harm/violate rights nonconsensually, there's no reason to deny the right to take that action if you so wish. Sorry, that came out a bit confusing.
[ Simple answer: If it ain't hurting anybody, shouldn't be illegal. ]
At the end of the day having control over your own life is freedom, not the cheap freedom to spend (ha) or exert power over others.Blah blah, same old poison, spreading your "individualism". Individualism is a bourgeiose concept, something those Filthy Anarchists promote but dont realize its severity. a nightmare ofEDEN
Wow, Rob, when did you turn into an a**?
neutral
Funny how all of you seem unable to recognize the difference between individualism and individuality. Individualism is putting the individual ahead of the community. Individuality and personal freedom can work alongside communism.
Communists are against individualism. Including myself.
There, congratulations, consider yourself educated.You speak fervently about the freedom of the individual more so then you speak of the liberation of the proletariat, which suggests individualism. I know my terminology though, thank you. And last time i checked you thought new ideas could appear out of mid-air while ignoring what you called the "old thinkers". But such a tale of magic hocus-pocus didn't come out of your orifice did it? because surely a communist, that is to say a scientific socialist such as yourself wouldn't suggest such a thing? No of course not! How silly of me to assume such a thing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:12 pm
Calm down Rob. It is good to be able to show consistency in someone's political mistakes, it is another thing to talk like that.
Also, Eden, while you put forward a working definition for individualism, you did no such thing for indiviuality. Might not seem like much, but it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:50 pm
Gracchvs Lazy first world workers? Does that mean the only barers of change in the imperialist centres are the petty bourgeois intelligentsia? If so, I would like to tell you to 1: Lurk moar 2: Read more Lenin, he says nothing of the sort, in fact he says that the world revolution will begin in the weakest link of the imperialist chain, ie. one of the weaker imperialist states or one of the stronger colonial states (currently looks like India or South Africa, but that could change any minute) 3: I would like to ask you, in the most polite way posible, to STFU. I am in no way a petty bourgeois in general or the intelligentsia in particular. By family and and practice, I am a proletarian, even if I would prefer to be a teacher one day. To say that is to say, in short, that I don't exist, and yet... Here I am. Quote: Communism is an advancement of culture/ideology that is globalized into the general culture much like capitalism has. No. It isn't. You should know by now. Communism as an ideology seeks to institute the rule of the working class and collectivise the economy under its control. Any advanced culture/ideology that occur will be as a side effect. They are not the point of communism. Why would have the revolution started by imperialist colonies and not the first world workers? This is because the workers of the imperialist nations have a better standard of living and will wish to keep it. Marx, Engles Trotsky and Lenin were all of Bourgeois class and families so why should you be any different? You clam to be a proletariat yet follow intellect founded from middle class families. They are in fact part of petty bourgeois, hell if your part of socialism you are petty bourgeois simply due to the government/laws/etc in place in socialism for they will be from bourgeois concepts. Its not like these things will go away from bloody coup de dat its an ideological battle here it takes way beyond our life time for communism to take route seeing as socialism still carries alot of petty bourgeois concepts. You wanna know why there will be petty bourgeois concepts, its because we live in a bourgeois culture simple as that. Its not like your going to be able to shed your culture/ways of life/habits etc because of a revolution. Sure things will change but people will still cling to old customs. Even Lenin states that petty bourgeois concepts are in the 1st stage. The point of communism is the development of a new ideology due to a new economic system as its foundations if your going with Hegelian superstructure theory which Marx relied heavily upon. It is to destroy anarchy of social production and the ECONOMIC class system of capitalism. Its first stage socialism is to set up a vanguard because social consciousness has not taken root (aka ideology) and to stress social consciousness/economic conditions. Basically ive always viewed the vanguard to be in place due to lack of social consciousness or IE stupidity of the masses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:26 pm
I missed the top of Rob's post, so: Quote: I dont remember reading that in any of Lenin's works, however if by some chance i missed it Lenin probably promoted that only because Russia was a backwards country. From my understanding Marx called for The most advanced countries to overthrow bourgeiose rule. Its almost impossible to see it happening effectivly the other way around. Check out Lenin's Imperialism. It is a good book on the subject. Tank: stop playing with words. Or at least learn what the words mean and their interations between each other before you spout this crap. Quote: Marx, Engles Trotsky and Lenin were all of Bourgeois class and families so why should you be any different? Because I own nothing but my capacity to labour, and have to sell that capacity to labour in order to get money to live. I believe that means I am a proletarian, a member of that class called the proletariat since the Great Revolution. Quote: You clam to be a proletariat yet follow intellect founded from middle class families. I follow an intellect founded from middle class families... That sentence has to be one of the most butchered you have posted here. I seriously hope english is not your native language. If it is... Ouch. But your ability to express your thoughts is not the thoughts themselves, and that is what I have to try to deal with here: I follow an ideology built on the research of certain members of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, this is true. But where is the problem? The proletariat doesn't, in general, have the education to learn tthe things necessary to turn socialism into a science, and so it was left up to the better members of the petty/bourgeoisie. Hopefully this is a response to what you said. If not... Quote: They are in fact part of petty bourgeois, hell if your part of socialism you are petty bourgeois simply due to the government/laws/etc in place in socialism for they will be from bourgeois concepts. I am not a member of the petty bourgeoisie because I do not have my own business. Quiet simple. I am a proletarian. If you are saying that socialism itself is a petty-bourgeois ideology because there will be a period of transition between class society and classless society during which there will be an interpenetration of class and classless ideology and conceptions of right... Nothing can save you. Quote: Its not like these things will go away from bloody coup de dat coup de etat its an ideological battle here it takes way beyond our life time for communism to take route seeing as socialism still carries alot of petty bourgeois concepts. Socialism doesn't carry bourgeois concepts. Let us go to what L has said on this matter, no doubt whwre you have gotten your understanding from, and read it properly: Quote: "Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions). But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is: "... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal." The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs). we are not talking about 'concepts' but of right. That is, the right to the product of labour. The manner in which this is dealt with at that time is still in the bourgeois fashion, as eemplified in the stalinist motte 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their work.' Also, immediately, yes, culture, ideology and habbits will be completely changed after the revolution. That is the very essence of a revolution. The diifference is the amount of change, and the world in which they opperate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:10 am
YAY! Good, this is the heart of what I was getting at! HA! The "practical" applications. Now I am not anti-communist nor am I pro but the issues seems to be that the conceptualization of freedom from what I am seeing has no concrete definition in communism. As a secondary observation I notice that Socialism just seems to follow a western view of what "free person" is. Now, judging all of what you said seems to lead me to believe that there are 3 basic concepts to this guilds model of freedom. 1. Freedom is a Lie, 2. Freedom contains elements of individuality, and 3. Freedom is one aspect of the controlling state. These are thus far the most well supported arguments that do not deal with "Philosophy" but rather attempt to approach the idea from a need stand point. With the exception of point one (provided time and again by Tank) the question is why does one need freedom or why does any state need it as well as an individual?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:38 am
Did you edit more into your post Tank? It seems a little longer than last night... Dealing with what I don't remember being there: Quote: The point of communism is the development of a new ideology due to a new economic system as its foundations if your going with Hegelian superstructure theory which Marx relied heavily upon. Hegelian superstructure theory? What the ******** are you talking about? Quote: It is to destroy anarchy of social production and the ECONOMIC class system of capitalism. Its first stage socialism is to set up a vanguard because social consciousness has not taken root (aka ideology) and to stress social consciousness/economic conditions. Um... No. The vanguard is the party. The vanguard leads the proletariat and the oppressed into and through the revolution. It isn't created by the revolution. The vanguard leads because it is the only group that has an understanding of what needs to be done, and can lead by example. It acts as the Tribune of the People as L put it in What Is To Be Done?Quote: Basically ive always viewed the vanguard to be in place due to lack of social consciousness or IE stupidity of the masses. *COUGH* Now to the other one: Quote: YAY! Good, this is the heart of what I was getting at! HA! The "practical" applications. Now I am not anti-communist nor am I pro but the issues seems to be that the conceptualization of freedom from what I am seeing has no concrete definition in communism. As a secondary observation I notice that Socialism just seems to follow a western view of what "free person" is. Now, judging all of what you said seems to lead me to believe that there are 3 basic concepts to this guilds model of freedom. 1. Freedom is a Lie, 2. Freedom contains elements of individuality, and 3. Freedom is one aspect of the controlling state. These are thus far the most well supported arguments that do not deal with "Philosophy" but rather attempt to approach the idea from a need stand point. With the exception of point one (provided time and again by Tank) the question is why does one need freedom or why does any state need it as well as an individual? OH! My horror! I am sorry. I just woke up and am in no possition to deal with this, either decently or through sarcasm. I will have to come back tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:17 pm
_to Gracchvs
Could you find me the portion in Imperialism where he states his theory, i have read it and i dont recall particullarly where it is.
_To Sitalkes
Communism actually, does have a meaning for freedom. Communism seeks to create a socio-economic, political system in which the oppression of one class by another has withered into oblivion. In other words, Freedom. These other views put forth i would not exactly label as "communist" in flavor The first conception put forth by Tank is a school of philosophy known as hard-determinism. Which from my interpretation is applying dialectics to the human condition. The second suggested by Eden ( whom has rejected the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin and therefore to me holds no merit as a so called “communist“ ) is the promotion of the freedom of the individual which is not the goal of communism but a consequence. To promote this as a goal of communism is incorrect. And the third, which im assuming were to be the words of Comrade Gracchvs in which you mangled. A true Marxist supports the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, and a true Marxist knows that the "state" is an organ of class rule, thus it is necessary for the proletariat, once they seize power to disintegrate the state for the very reason of its oppressive character. For "Freedom"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
