Communism's Good Ideas?

[Kidlicious]

Re: Communism's Good Ideas?

Originally posted by Ned
What new "ideas" has communism contributed to the advancement of civilization?

Liquidate the capitalists.

[BeBMan]

Re: Re: Communism's Good Ideas?

Originally posted by Spiffor

not adopted

I consider "dictatorship of the proletariat" the most stupid idea. It just asks for a stupid "Betonkopf"-party elite as "spearhead of the working class".

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: Communism's Good Ideas?

Originally posted by BeBro
I consider "dictatorship of the proletariat" the most stupid idea. It just asks for a stupid "Betonkopf"-party elite as "spearhead of the working class".

[BeBMan]

OTOH politicians being small minded and stupid is certainly not exclusive to stalinist CPs

[Odin]

I am a socialist, but not really of the Marxist type. My brand of socialism retains the market, but the bussiness are co-ops, with the money for investing comming from government-run banks. The problem with Soviet-style Communism was the assuption that one could change human nature.

[Odin]

Re: Re: Re: Communism's Good Ideas?

Originally posted by BeBro


I consider "dictatorship of the proletariat" the most stupid idea. It just asks for a stupid "Betonkopf"-party elite as "spearhead of the working class".

[chequita guevara]

Free love is actually not a Marxist idea, though it is a communist one. Many of the utopian communists advanced free love ideas. Marx was opposed to this. He didn't believe in the "community property" of women. Lenin was also rather opposed to the idea, although not for the same paternalistic reasons as Marx. If everone's too busy ****ing, no work will get done. You can't have a revulotion if everyone's horizontal.

On the other hand, Allexandra Kollentai was a strong supporter of free love, and I lean more towards Kollentai than Lenin, though I understand his point.

Allexandra Kollentai

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Odin
The problem with Soviet-style Communism was the assuption that one could change human nature.

Only initially. It didn't take long for the Party to realize that they couldn't depend on individuals to work together enough to get things done. Then they went to the other extreme.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Communism's Good Ideas?

Originally posted by BeBro
I consider "dictatorship of the proletariat" the most stupid idea.

Do you have a problem with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie under which you live right now? The dictatorship of the proletariat means nothing more or less than the absolute rule of the proletariat, without sharing power with other classes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Lenin was also rather opposed to the idea, although not for the same paternalistic reasons as Marx. If everone's too busy ****ing, no work will get done. You can't have a revulotion if everyone's horizontal.

You can't have the revolution, but afterwords the people will have more time for love making and raising kids.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Odin
The problem with Soviet-style Communism was the assuption that one could change human nature.

No, the problem with Soviet-socialism was that they were invaded by fourteen countries who also supported insurrection which so devastated the country that the class support of the revolution collapsed and the bureaucracy needed to substitute itself for the no-longer existant working class, and that once in power, felt no desire to give it up again, and would do whatever it took to stay in power.

But let's not let facts get in the way of your ideology.

[BeBMan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism's Good Ideas?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Do you have a problem with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie under which you live right now?

Why is it a dictatorship when people can vote for what they want, even Communist parties?

The dictatorship of the proletariat means nothing more or less than the absolute rule of the proletariat, without sharing power with other classes.

I know, unlike most here I'm from a part in Europe which actually was under a so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" -although the proletariat did not much ruling, rather said party elite, which wasn't much proletarian anyway, maybe with some exceptions.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism's Good Ideas?

Originally posted by BeBro
Why is it a dictatorship when people can vote for what they want, even Communist parties?

Because no matter who is in charge, they still have to follow the dictates of capitalism. Should they decide to stray too far from the path, the capitalists will find a way to remove the government, either by trashing the economy (and getting the voters to pick someone else) or by instigating a military revolt or if need be funding the fascists and allowing them to take power. The illusion of choice doesn't mean you rule yourselves.

I know, unlike most here I'm from a part in Europe which actually was under a so called "dictatorship of the proletariat" -although the proletariat did not much ruling, rather said party elite, which wasn't much proletarian anyway, maybe with some exceptions.

You're also from a country which called itself democratic. Why accept one self-description but not another?

[BeBMan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism's Good Ideas?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by BeBro
Why is it a dictatorship when people can vote for what they want, even Communist parties?

Because no matter who is in charge, they still have to follow the dictates of capitalism. Should they decide to stray too far from the path, the capitalists will find a way to remove the government, either by trashing the economy or by instigating a military revolt or if need be, funding the fascists and allowing them to take power. The illusion of choice doesn't mean you rule yourselves.

I want political competition, and that is something we hadn't before, but have now.

You're also from a country which called itself democratic. Why accept one self-description but not another?

Because you could experience very well what "dictatorship of the proletariat" meaned, while OTOH you could not experience much democracy back then....

[Kidlicious]

Manifesto

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

The bourgeoisie has to be swept away. Only a dictatorship of the proletariate can do that. Political power means oppression. The proletariate has representation but not power because they can not stop their own oppression. Representation is not enough to prevent it.