The theoretical basis for the triumph of communism

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Aivo½so
Don't you people think Communism is kind of getting old? I mean, the only people to call themselves Communists here in Finland are either teens who read about Communism in their history textbooks or populistic whackjobs that used to be financed by the USSR. I think all kinds of "communism" and "socialism" are definitely on their way out. What the future holds will be something entirely different.

“ It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. ”
—Karl Marx

Most people don't really try to understand Marx. In order to have a different type of society you must have a different type of "production relation." What other production relation is possible?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kidicious


“ It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. ”
—Karl Marx

"We disagree"
—other filos

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro


"We disagree"
—other filos

The future of the world is serious.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

One word: naive.

Ignorance is your strong point, isn't it?

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: The theoretical basis for the triumph of communism

Originally posted by Heraclitus

So you are droping the dictatorship of the proletariat? But isn't that some kind of socialism rather than communism?

Dictatorship, in this instance, is a 19th Century word that didn't carry the connotation it does today. Rather than being the absolute rule of an individual or a small clique, it is the absolute rule of an entire class, one that happens to make up the majority of the population. To illustrate the point, The EU is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, as is the United States. In these states, the rule of the capitalist class is unchallenged and absolute.

Isn't it accepted that all democracies devolve into plutocracies?

You're confusing your terms. Democracy means rule by the people. If you define some humans as not being part of "the people" you can still have a democracy. That's why we can talk about Athenian democracy, even though only males who were citizens could take part. Women, slaves, and foreigners could not take part.

Under capitalism, however, there can be no democracy. Were there democracy, the capitalist class would not be able to impose its will and protect its property. The "mob" would vote itself rights that interfere with the ability of the capitalists to extract a profit, and eventually simply take the property for itself. This is why the capitalists use every means available to stop it, including and up to coup d'etats, civil war, and mass murder.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Aivo½so
Don't you people think Communism is kind of getting old?

If communism is old, what is capitalism?

[Heraclitus]

In a competition of youth I think fascism would beat both...

[Heraclitus]

@Kid & Comrade Snuggles (I can't believe you choose that, Zombie Lenin is waaay better): So when did the Russian revolution go wrong? Could the USSR have been any better than it was? I hope you can both agree that Stalinism was nothing but a national socialism.

[BeBMan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The theoretical basis for the triumph of communism

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by Heraclitus

So you are droping the dictatorship of the proletariat? But isn't that some kind of socialism rather than communism?

Dictatorship, in this instance, is a 19th Century word that didn't carry the connotation it does today. Rather than being the absolute rule of an individual or a small clique, it is the absolute rule of an entire class, one that happens to make up the majority of the population. To illustrate the point, The EU is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, as is the United States. In these states, the rule of the capitalist class is unchallenged and absolute.

Isn't it accepted that all democracies devolve into plutocracies?

You're confusing your terms. Democracy means rule by the people. If you define some humans as not being part of "the people" you can still have a democracy. That's why we can talk about Athenian democracy, even though only males who were citizens could take part. Women, slaves, and foreigners could not take part.

Under capitalism, however, there can be no democracy. Were there democracy, the capitalist class would not be able to impose its will and protect its property. The "mob" would vote itself rights that interfere with the ability of the capitalists to extract a profit, and eventually simply take the property for itself. This is why the capitalists use every means available to stop it, including and up to coup d'etats, civil war, and mass murder.

Ahh, it's not democracy now since the "absolute rule of an entire class, one that happens to make up the majority of the population" isn't enough to speak of democracy. Otoh in ancient Athens it certainly was, since they could just "define some humans as not being part of "the people"" and still were democratic.

[Sir Og]

Darius speaks thruth

[Kidlicious]

Bebro,

Do you know what a pigdog is?

[BeBMan]

Sounds like some weird fetish stuff

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
Sounds like some weird fetish stuff

Yes, for those who like them. That's not entirely incorrect.

[BeBMan]

I have no idea what it is, and I wonder whether I should show interest in finding it out

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
I have no idea what it is, and I wonder whether I should show interest in finding it out

They are part Hitler and part Cheney.