Apolyton Communist Party meeting: What is to be done?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Monkspider:

One question. Do you believe that this state can be achieved by persons, without the intervention of God?

Well it depends on what you mean precisely, my friend. God is constantly intervening in things here on Earth. So a future communist society would involve his intervention as well. Also, communism directly reflects the nature of God, so you could argue that such a society would involve his intervention in a perhaps more indirect way as well. If you are asking if "God" must intervene in an old testament sense, such as raining down fire and brimstone or some such thing, then I would say certainly not.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I agree a lot with you Monkspider

at times I wonder about the possibility of working from the ground up

as in start communes and the like, and than take control of local government, than national government

Jon Miller

Well of course communism starts on a much smaller scale than even a local commune, it starts with the individual. When that person reaches a degree of love and spiritual conciousness where they wish to dedicate themselves to helping out all fellow members of humanity, that is where communism begins. But your point is well taken, communism will certainly start on a small scale, before it becomes widespread.

[Ben Kenobi]

'Religeon is the opium of the Masses'
-Marx

Thanks for proving my point. How can Christ agree with this statement of Marx?

Not to dictate and lead life according to a narrow and easily misinterpreted set of values.

So narrow that communists clamour for the spiritual benefits?

monkspider:

You are treading very close to Christian precepts, and away from Marx. Marx denies the existence of God, and the actions of God on the world. Such a communist system was to be achieved apart from God. Your statement that God can and does intervene in the world is a testimony unavailable to communism.

One more question. Do you believe Christ is Lord, that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and resurrected from the dead?

If so, you are not a communist. You seem to be a socialist Christian, concerned for social welfare of others, advocating the reform of our monetary system.

Christianity is not committed to capitalism over more socialist models, many Mennonites, my own church, have refused military service in order to live in farms.

If that's not communal, I don't know what is.

DuncanK:
Communism is objectively opposed to the family as a unit apart from society. Missed this one.

Where is Che? All you communists are not really communists!

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by DuncanK


The means justify the ends. I don't agree with abolishing the family and religion, but I don't think we should just stop calling ourselves communists just becuase of minor things like that. Communists is a good term. To me it means living in a classless society where one class doesn't own the means of production and another class does all the work.

You quote Marx, therefore I'm inclined to believe that you follow his brand of communism.

That said, I make a little over $14k a year, so I certainly qualify for the "Proletariat", and Marx would have loved to take away MY personal property, that I bought with MY money.

Well, to quote Loki and Bartleby; "Fvck that. Fvck that!"

[Jon Miller]

there are many other communists, other than those who follow Marx

and yes Monkspider, I know that every man is his own communism

I think that the next step is family, and from there community

finally we can reach state

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Why? DuncanK, why do you (obviously, based on your sig) support the Marxist line of Communism? This is a man who had stated that *your* private Property should be taken away, and that the Family unit should be abolished.

This same man supported "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels", which, after exhaustive mindnumbing reading of the Communist Manifesto, I've taken ti mean he would limit travel. Why would he do this? Because Communism can only exist in isolation. Under the Marxist theory a communist soceity would be contaminated by capitalist soceities.

You must not be terribly bright if after "exhaustive" reading you conclude he meant to limit travel.

First off, if you've read the Manifesto, and I'll take your word on it, even though it seems as though you just leafed through it to find things with which to disagree without trying to understand, you would know that Marx writes that private property has already been abolished for the vast majority of humanity. How can "your" private property be taken away when you don't have any? In 1847, this was a true statement, even in the West. Most people had been kicked off their farms, had been changed from journeymen-apprentices to simple workers, etc. People's ownership of the means of production was abolished by capitalism.

Yes, it's different today. In response to the growing threat of proletarian revolution, the governments of the West instituted programs to expand home ownership and to encourage small businesses and small farms. Still, in the worldwide system of capitalism, the vast majority of people are dispossed of property. Do we mean to take people's homes and cars and small businesses? No. Do we mean to make factories and apartment buildings and such the common property of the workers? Yes.

As for the family unit, did you not notice Marx's commentary about how the market has already abolished the family? How many here live in extended families? Even today, the nuclear family is torn asunder by the forces of modern life. More than half of all children today have divorced parents. On top of that, infidelity is as high as 70% according to some studies. What family? Still, what did Marx mean?

Do you remember the family when women and children were the property of the husband and father? In 1847, this was still the way things were done in the whole world. It's still the way things are done in much of the world. Yes, we mean to abolish this state of affairs. Women and children should not be slaves to the man of the house. I proudly say we will abolish this.

Of course, another problem is in the translation. The actual word Marx uses is aufehbung (spelling?) which means to negate through transcendence. In other words, we aren't abolishing private property pr the family per se, but using them as the foundation to build new relations between men, women, and children. Relationships based on equality and not economic power.

On confiscation of property of emigrants and rebels, look to Nicaragua for an example of this in action. People opposed to the new democracy in Nicaragua fled the country or joined the Contras. Their factories went idle, their farms went wild. They hurt the economy and the people of Nicaragua. Why shouldn't the people of Nicaragua seize the prpoerty of those trying to destroy them? Why should the workers do the same?

As for communism needing to be isolated, nothing can be further from the truth. The exact opposite is true. Communism must spread in order to survive. It is because of the isolation of the socialist revolutions that they failed. Marx predicted as much in his unpublished (in his lifetime) work, The German Ideology. In it, Marx said that unless the entire world were involved, scarity would exist, which would bring about the whole mess of class society all over again. History here proved him correct.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Where is Che? All you communists are not really communists!

I had six days of work and I was resting.

There are many types of communists, including Chistian communists. Heck, one of our states was founded by Christian communists . . . Utah! Yep, the Mormans were a communist group, at least in the beginning. Their religion still preaches communitarian practices and some of the more wachky types practice it out there in the desert. Kinda like polygamy.

Marxists aren't the only communists. I'm willing to ally with anyone who will ally with me. I retain the right, however, to critique their politics and true and nudge them along the true path of chegitism.

[Frankychan]

Reading the past posts made me realize that most American's do NOT make a distinction between Stalinism, Maoism, and communism.

The true ideal's of socialism is to help out your fellow man whether they be black, white, asian, pacific islander, etc. But many American's today have been culturally socialized (no pun's please) into believing that ALL communism is bad. The fact that America is probably the bastion of laissez-faire capitalism does not escape me, and quite frankly, scares me.

What I believe, comrades, is that the only way American's can institutionalize communism is by using the system against itself (i.e. creating a contemporary communist party). Although we would have to rename the party into a more liberal sounding party name. Hopefully the "new" communist party members will get elected into local offices and therefore start reform from the inside.

However, I doubt that most people would be in support of creating a more socialist party. We as socialists would probably have to rename "Socialism" into a more American-friendly terminology.

[Az]

"chegitism"

[Shi Huangdi]

"Marxists aren't the only communists. I'm willing to ally with anyone who will ally with me. I retain the right, however, to critique their politics and true and nudge them along the true path of chegitism. "

In other words, you are going to send them to the gulag.

[Frankychan]

Maybe something that uses rhetoric from the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. Something that associates itself with democracy or republic.

The thing is to try use the right sounding vocabulary that the average voting American can associate and relate to and will remember come election day.

[JohnT]

You know, you people couldn't even organize a book club... what makes you think y'all have the brass ones needed for worldwide domination?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Maybe something that uses rhetoric from the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. Something that associates itself with democracy or republic.

The thing is to try use the right sounding vocabulary that the average voting American can associate and relate to and will remember come election day.

Heh. Yeah, because the "Democratic People's Republic" of North Korea really has us fooled.



-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
You know, you people couldn't even organize a book club... what makes you think y'all have the brass ones needed for worldwide domination?

Worldwide domination is much easier than getting several communists to agree on their monthly book (heck, on anything )

[Az]