NationStates Jolt Archive

I know all you Marxists out there will love to point out that this move towards globalisation is simply shifting the proletariat to a different group of people but I will argue that revolution under such circumstances is pracitically impossible.

I agree, screw you marx, bloody moron. :mad:

Heh heh… little do they know… the plot is nearly ripe…

As much as I dislike to admit it Communism itself is impossible, nothing in human nature will accept that everyone should be completely equal. There will always be those who must have more than everyone else. In a Communist sociality that leads to corrupt Governments. It's a dream nothing more. A noble dream but a dream none the less. You can possibly have commuist towns and other smaller groups with with an entire country someone won't be able to take the finacinal equality.

As much as I dislike to admit it Communism itself is impossible, nothing in human nature will accept that everyone should be completely equal. There will always be those who must have more than everyone else. In a Communist sociality that leads to corrupt Governments. It's a dream nothing more.

Of course it is, people simply are not equal, we are neither born nor do we die equal, and such a concept of universal equality is fraudulent in the extreme.

As much as I dislike to admit it Communism itself is impossible, nothing in human nature will accept that everyone should be completely equal. There will always be those who must have more than everyone else. In a Communist sociality that leads to corrupt Governments. It's a dream nothing more. Yes, it always stops at socialism. If equality is possible at all, it needs to be enforced by a strong authority - which is why socialism is easily possible, but not communism.

Also, revolution creates a power vacuum that Mao/Stalin fill. Evolution is better than revolution. (Not a communist)

The simple fact that morally correct (or sentimentalist) or not communisim is not as efficient as capitalism ( at least to begin with). You may disagree but their really is nothing like human greed to begin get people working. As a few rich countries buy goods from lots of small poor countries if a single country dissents it can simply be ignored and the economy will collaspe without cash crop money. As no government will ever want to do this (and face becoming unelected) no one will and as the countries (and people) will never in a thousand year cooperate as one it will never happen.

Of course it is, people simply are not equal, we are neither born nor do we die equal, and such a concept of universal equality is fraudulent in the extreme.

People like you are why it will never work. You just have to have someone worse off than you in order to be happy.

People like you are why it will never work. You just have to have someone worse off than you in order to be happy.

Precisely, if someone is better off than me, somebody else had bloody better be worse off :p

People like you are why it will never work. You just have to have someone worse off than you in order to be happy.

what do you expect he's only human

what do you expect he's only human

You hope.... :D

Heh, you people still think that Communism is about everybody being perfectly equal...

...People aren't equal. Communism is just about giving everyone an equal chance at a good life.

Communist Revolution In A Global Economy Is Practically Impossible


Yeah, it's too bad isn't it?

I know all you Marxists out there will love to point out that this move towards globalisation is simply shifting the proletariat to a different group of people but I will argue that revolution under such circumstances is pracitically impossible.

Uh...sure, you can argue that. I'm waiting for the argument.

is there still an international communist movement pushing communist revolutions in various countries? i know there are still some communist revolutionaries in countries like peru and nepal but are they supported and encouraged by an outside movement like they were in the old days of the ussr?

is there still an international communist movement pushing communist revolutions in various countries? i know there are still some communist revolutionaries in countries like peru and nepal but are they supported and encouraged by an outside movement like they were in the old days of the ussr?

Problem is, those revolutionaries are hardly Communist. Just look at King Castro...

Problem is, those revolutionaries are hardly Communist. Just look at King Castro...
Castro was a nationalist. He only supported communism to get the assistance of the USSR.

Than why communism was able to be in part of Europe for almost 50 years?

I know all you Marxists out there will love to point out that this move towards globalisation is simply shifting the proletariat to a different group of people but I will argue that revolution under such circumstances is pracitically impossible.
There are still people nieve enough to believe in Marxism, other than teenage girls with no allowances? Wierd! :D

Castro was a nationalist. He only supported communism to get the assistance of the USSR.

Exactly. He wanted to protect his new regime from the USA, and he got just what he wanted. Missile bases and Soviet troops.

Than why communism was able to be in part of Europe for almost 50 years?

Argh! It wasn't communism in any definition. Might I suggest you do some reading? :)

There are still people nieve enough to believe in Marxism, other than teenage girls with no allowances? Wierd! :D

You'd be surprised - and I dispute the "naive" statement.

...People aren't equal. Communism is just about giving everyone an equal chance at a good life.
Oh, brother! Well, that statement explains a lot. :rolleyes:

You'd be surprised - and I dispute the "naive" statement.
Ok. Go for it! :)

There are still people nieve enough to believe in Marxism, other than teenage girls with no allowances? Wierd! :D


Hey now that's just untrue!!! I'm a teenage boy. :D

Oh, brother! Well, that statement explains a lot. :rolleyes:

...And you wonder why you get warned and banned so frequently these days.

Can't you even carry a debate without doing this anymore?

Ok. Go for it! :)

What justification do you need? I already said I dispute it. I don't think I, or fellow communists, are naive in believing that we can do something better. So there :p

Might I suggest you do some reading?
Yes you can.

What justification do you need? I already said I dispute it. I don't think I, or fellow communists, are naive in believing that we can do something better. So there :p

I know of something better we could do than this. Get on MSN.

I hope that Communist revolution is already impossible anywhere. Nepal may prove me wrong, though...

Hey now that's just untrue!!! I'm a teenage boy. :D
Heh! Sorry about that. Would you like me to alter my original statement? ;)

I hope that Communist revolution is already impossible anywhere. Nepal may prove me wrong, though...

Why's that? Is it really so bad to give everybody an equal chance?

...And you wonder why you get warned and banned so frequently these days.

Can't you even carry a debate without doing this anymore?
But it DOES explain a lot! WTF is wrong with THAT? Jeeze! Unlax, willya??? :headbang:

Why's that? Is it really so bad to give everybody an equal chance?
The history of my country shows that Communist revolution is first and foremost about absolute power, and not about equal chances.

What justification do you need? I already said I dispute it. I don't think I, or fellow communists, are naive in believing that we can do something better. So there :p
Arghhh! Verily, thy stunning evidentiary persuasion and incisive wit have devastated my feeble arguments! :D

But it DOES explain a lot! WTF is wrong with THAT? Jeeze! Unlax, willya??? :headbang:

'Tis useless to even post in your general vicinity, I see.

I dunno what it is. Do you find it necessary to harrass me constantly just because of my general political stance? Seems that way to me.

The history of my country shows that Communist revolution is first and foremost about absolute power, and not about equal chances.
EGGG-ZACTLY! :)

The history of my country shows that Communist revolution is first and foremost about absolute power, and not about equal chances.

Exactly, because said "Communists" were hardly that at all. The Soviet Union was a Totalitarian regime, although less so before Stalin.

'Tis useless to even post in your general vicinity, I see.

I dunno what it is. Do you find it necessary to harrass me constantly just because of my general political stance? Seems that way to me.
Sigh. How, pray tell, am I "harrassing" you? Because I take issue with people who want to turn my Country into a "communist" dictatorship??? :(

Communistic revolution is possible almost in every country where it already has been. In my own country lot of people want back communism.

Yes you can.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm

Plenty of Marxist writers who critiqued the Stalin era and beyond USSR in here. Look under "Left Communism" and "Trotskyism" specifically.

Then move onto Anarchism, if you like, here: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/ (though they are both distinct political theories. Anarcho-communists and Trots don't like eachother very much :p)

Why's that? Is it really so bad to give everybody an equal chance?
Hello! You don't have to turn my Country into a communist state just to give people an equal chance. That's the political equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater! :headbang:

Problem is, those revolutionaries are hardly Communist. Just look at King Castro...
castro's cuba is as close to communism as we are ever likely to get. (not that i want to talk about cuba)

i realize that current communist revolutionaries are not particularily communist. they are latching onto the lable perhaps with the idea that any revolutionary movement that starts "with the people" is communist.

back in the day, the soviets would have sent arms and advisors to these groups. they would have brought their best and brightest to russia for education and training. they would have taught them the basics of what communism (soviet style) means. in the end they would have had allegiance to the ussr and a good understanding of communism.

i suggest that THIS is the reason why there will be no big communist revolutions any time soon. its not the global economy, its the lack of international support for communist revolutions.

Sigh. How, pray tell, am I "harrassing" you? Because I take issue with people who want to turn my Country into a "communist" dictatorship??? :(

...No. You're clearly trolling, trying to make me (and others) look like dumbasses.

Get this in your head: I don't want any country or territory to be turned into a "Communist" dictatorship. It's almost as bad as Fascism.

Hello! You don't have to turn my Country into a communist state just to give people an equal chance. That's the political equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater! :headbang:

Sure. Like all the poor people are on equal terms with the super-rich people living in suburbs...

I don't want any country or territory to be turned into a "Communist" dictatorship. It's almost as bad as Fascism.
Fascism an communism is the same Socialism.

Arghhh! Verily, thy stunning evidentiary persuasion and incisive wit have devastated my feeble arguments! :D

Of course. Would you expect any less?

Hello! You don't have to turn my Country into a communist state just to give people an equal chance. That's the political equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

Because the USA has made so many strides towards this recently. ;)

(And there's no such thing as a communist "state" :p)

...No. You're clearly trolling, trying to make me (and others) look like dumbasses.

Get this in your head: I don't want any country or territory to be turned into a "Communist" dictatorship. It's almost as bad as Fascism.
True. But the history of all attempts to institute "communism" clearly shows that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" never, ever goes away. Thus, for all practical purposes, communism=dictatorship. Marx was wrong.

Exactly, because said "Communists" were hardly that at all. The Soviet Union was a Totalitarian regime, although less so before Stalin.
I've got a couple of questions.

If Lenin and Trotsky weren't Marxists and Communists, then who do you think they were?

So what event in the history of the world was THE Communist revolution, if the October Revolution of 1917 wasn't?

Than why communism was able to be in part of Europe for almost 50 years?
Because Russia is big and it had a lot of tanks.

I think the greater question is how did the west crack the Eastern bloc in such a surprisingly short time with minimal direct force application? :D

Fascism an communism is the same Socialism.

Yeah, they're both Socialist governments. In their *true* forms, they are very, very different. However, the form of pseudo-Communism that's usually practiced isn't much different from Fascism.

castro's cuba is as close to communism as we are ever likely to get. (not that i want to talk about cuba)

Spain was the closest, before the western democracies chose to recognise Franco, and sat back and watched the Nazi's and Italians destroy it.

I know all you Marxists out there will love to point out that this move towards globalisation is simply shifting the proletariat to a different group of people but I will argue that revolution under such circumstances is pracitically impossible.

Personally I think that globalisation encourages a revolution, large corporations are making more and more money of people, because if their employees don't agree to work to lower wages, etc, the companies simply mive to a country where people will do so. Governments are doing everything to keep those corporations in their own countries, to ensure their own economy.
And people who have power, will allways want more, that's almost a law of nature
So: people will ultimately get fed up and rise up, not now, but eventually. I will probably live to witness (and participate in) it.
I just hope that by then people will have realised that not Marx but Bakunin was right.

Of course. Would you expect any less?

Because the USA has made so many strides towards this recently. ;)

(And there's no such thing as a communist "state" :p)
LOL! Ah yes, the "state" is just going to "wither away!" How COULD I have forgotten! :rolleyes:

LOL! Ah yes, the "state" is just going to "wither away!" How COULD I have forgotten! :rolleyes:

Yeah, that's exactly what happens...

Ugh, people. You need to read up on things.

Personally I think that globalisation encourages a revolution, large corporations are making more and more money of people, because if their employees don't agree to work to lower wages, etc, the companies simply mive to a country where people will do so. Governments are doing everything to keep those corporations in their own countries, to ensure their own economy.
And people who have power, will allways want more, that's almost a law of nature
So: people will ultimately get fed up and rise up, not now, but eventually. I will probably live to witness (and participate in) it.
I just hope that by then people will have realised that not Marx but Bakunin was right.
And the industrial revolution will take effect in these smaller countries, and eventually wages will rise, just as they did in the west, standards of living will rise, and people will be happy. And just so long as their situation doesn't worsen and they don't find themselves starving to death people don't revolt. Very few revolutions have been spurred on by ideals, virtually all of them have been driven by hunger.

And the masses won't act without a leader.

And I'll be greasing these revolutionaries, should they attempt to rise up in my lifetime.

Yeah, that's exactly what happens...

Ugh, people. You need to read up on things.

The state will NOT wither away, how do think people will give up the power they have, unless through a revolution which is made even more difficult under an oppressive government such as a communist one

Yeah, that's exactly what happens...

Ugh, people. You need to read up on things.
Yep, I've read up on these things. And I don't believe that the state would willingly wither away. I believe that Marx was fundamentally wrong, and rather silly. Applying the term scientific to anything he did is also comical.

The state will NOT wither away, how do think people will give up the power they have, unless through a revolution which is made even more difficult under an oppressive government such as a communist one

Heh, I think you totally missed my sarcasm. :p

True. But the history of all attempts to institute "communism" clearly shows that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" never, ever goes away. Thus, for all practical purposes, communism=dictatorship. Marx was wrong.

Take the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in context. Western "democracy" is referred to as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". The wealth owning class have power over the wealth creating class - the dictatorship of the proletariat is simply a reversal over the hold on power.

Furthermore, according to orthodox marxist doctrine, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot go away until all forces trying to destroy it have ceased, and there is a world revolution.

(For the record, I am *not* an orthodox marxist. I do not necessarily hold the above to be true.)



If Lenin and Trotsky weren't Marxists and Communists, then who do you think they were?

So what event in the history of the world was THE Communist revolution, if the October Revolution of 1917 wasn't?

They were Marxists. Yet both knew that they would fail if Germany too did not also fall into revolution. Russia couldn't sustain a workers state with its level of economic development at the time. It couldn't be THE communist revolution, if it was not worldwide.


Yeah, they're both Socialist governments

Fascism most certainly is not socialist in ANY form.



LOL! Ah yes, the "state" is just going to "wither away!" How COULD I have forgotten!

You make the mistake of assuming that I advocate any form of state organisation to begin with. ;)

Yep, I've read up on these things. And I don't believe that the state would willingly wither away. I believe that Marx was fundamentally wrong, and rather silly. Applying the term scientific to anything he did is also comical.

Correct. A single state will not disappear... That'd be impossible. For states to die out, the world has to go through a revolution, and that's a long ways off. Loooong.

Yeah, that's exactly what happens...
Where? When?



Ugh, people. You need to read up on things.
I would be more than willing to bet that I've "read up on things" far more than most on here.

I would be more than willing to bet that I've "read up on things" far more than most on here.

Not from the looks of it...

Correct. A single state will not disappear... That'd be impossible. For states to die out, the world has to go through a revolution, and that's a long ways off. Loooong.

Let's fraternize, and bring it closer :fluffle:

Das Kapital and the communist manifesto were the result of Marx having an off period

he was an economic genuis

Yeah, that's exactly what happens...

Ugh, people. You need to read up on things.

Sadly the majority of people never contrive to read either The Communist Manifesto, or Mein Kampf (I would suggest you do read this, it's hysterical atimes), since the communist utopia Marx alludes to would be inherently flawed, since it is reliant upon the intrinsic philanthropy of all men.

Read someone first T.More "Uthopia"

Sadly the majority of people never contrive to read either The Communist Manifesto, or Mein Kampf (I would suggest you do read this, it's hysterical atimes), since the communist utopia Marx alludes to would be inherently flawed, since it is reliant upon the intrinsic philanthropy of all men.

If one person can do it, it's possible for everyone to do so. Selfishness is a natural product of our current system. To be selfish is to profit and live a better life. It takes courage to step outside of the circle, but if enough people can do it, the world is ours. I see no reason why cooperating with your fellow human being is any more unnatural than competing with eachother. We are social creatures. We cannot live without eachother's support.

...

They were Marxists. Yet both knew that they would fail if Germany too did not also fall into revolution. Russia couldn't sustain a workers state with its level of economic development at the time. It couldn't be THE communist revolution, if it was not worldwide.

...
1) I won't say that Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did fail--they built a mighty totalitarian state, after all. It was not some kind of workers' paradise, but I suppose no one of them was so starry-eyed to think that he was building a second Eden.

2) Well, yes... But a worldwide revolution of any manner is something completely outlandish. :rolleyes:

Spain was the closest, before the western democracies chose to recognise Franco, and sat back and watched the Nazi's and Italians destroy it.
i dont count spain because they never really got a chance to put their ideals into action. we dont know how it would have turned out if franco had lost.

Why's that? Is it really so bad to give everybody an equal chance?

You are saying equal chance, I am thinking no chance.

1) I won't say that Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin did not fail--they built a mighty totalitarian state, after all. It was not some kind of workers' paradise, but I suppose no one of them was so starry-eyed to think that he was building a second Eden.

I certainly didn't agree with their methods. But then, I certainly don't believe that a communist revolution can be centered around one man...

2) Well, yes... But a worldwide revolution of any manner is something completely outlandish. :rolleyes:

At the time, yes. But it had the possibility of becoming a European revolution, at least.

Not from the looks of it...
Explain the Hegelian Dialectic.

If one person can do it, it's possible for everyone to do so. Selfishness is a natural product of our current system. To be selfish is to profit and live a better life. It takes courage to step outside of the circle, but if enough people can do it, the world is ours. I see no reason why cooperating with your fellow human being is any more unnatural than competing with eachother. We are social creatures. We cannot live without eachother's support.

You percieve "selfishness" as inhuman, I rather consider it a progressive instinct developed from simple animal nature. The most regressed, simple animal fights for self-propogation and survival, we merely enact a similar policy in a more sophisticated society, and accordingly more complex manner. Furtehrmore, Marx's concept of From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", intrinsically and irrefutable discriminates against those whose capacity is disproportionately in excess of their needs, and such individuals, who generally hold positions of power, accordingly oppose any communist revolution.

...
At the time, yes. But it had the possibility of becoming a European revolution, at least.
In 1917-1918? Yes, probably, and I shudder to think what would've come of it...

You percieve "selfishness" as inhuman, I rather consider it a progressive instinct developed from simple animal nature. The most regressed, simple animal fights for self-propogation and survival, we merely enact a similar policy in a more sophisticated society, and accordingly more complex manner.

You miss an important distinction here. Packs of wolves do not hunt other wolves. Without cooperation in the form of society, we would not survive. The earliest humans had to band together to hunt. With time, we banded together to form cities. And then, after thousands of years of cooperation, we all of a sudden had a surplus to dispense with. From that moment, competition was imposed upon human civilization unnaturally - to the point where the victors took more than just the surplus. Competition within a social species is unnatural.

Furtehrmore, Marx's concept of From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", intrinsically and irrefutable discriminates against those whose capacity is disproportionately in excess of their needs, and such individuals, who generally hold positions of power, accordingly oppose any communist revolution.

Of course. It's the way they survive in our society - by taking as much power as they can. Yet those particular people are the ones dependent upon the rest of society for their survival - they hold power in name only.

Explain the Hegelian Dialectic.

Oooh ooh! pick me! pick me! :p

If one person can do it, it's possible for everyone to do so. Selfishness is a natural product of our current system. To be selfish is to profit and live a better life. It takes courage to step outside of the circle, but if enough people can do it, the world is ours. I see no reason why cooperating with your fellow human being is any more unnatural than competing with eachother. We are social creatures. We cannot live without eachother's support.
Cooperation is a survival characteristic and is woven into our genes. Competition is too, but can be guided into more acceptable channels such as sports, business competition, etc.

Oooh ooh! pick me! pick me! :p
Hmm. Tempting ... but, no! :D

The Hegelian Dialectic was some old idealist kook. Even Marx described Hegel's philosophy as a fallacy, and it was, "standing on it's head."

But the point was that Communism can't rise in a global economy. Thank God. But, I think one of the main reasons is that Communism screwed its self over. Few people want anything to do with it anymore because the name is so black. Yes, it's much less likely now with globalization, people don't have the incentive to share like that because they're economy would die. Not that the economy did very well under Communism in the past, but meh, thats not important, right?

People keep mentioning equality among people. Aristotle said (I'm paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact quote), "The measure of a state is how it treat's it's oustanding citizens." The point is that not all people are equal... some people are born with innate abilities of science, or math, or government, or what have you. Communism is a failed way of governance, because they try to equalize these exemplarary individuals with people who have no more ability than at brute labor. Under communism, would Einstien or Hawking have been able to make all the scientific advances they did? No, because Communism is too busy with equality and wouldn't treat them the way they deserve to be. Under actual 'Communism' they would have been taken away to siberia and forced to work on military projects. That jerk Stalin.

I know all you Marxists out there will love to point out that this move towards globalisation is simply shifting the proletariat to a different group of people but I will argue that revolution under such circumstances is pracitically impossible.

So? If anything, that just highlights how capitalism has created an unstoppable hell on earth.

Sorry, have we actually been given an argument yet?

"Well, so far, Marx's theories of expanding markets and increasing inequality have been coming true, with 83% of wealth in the hands of just 20% of people, leaving a record number of people living on the poverty line. Therefore, a revolution is impossible."

I wonder what would have happened if Germany would have undergone a revolution at the same time as Russia. Its actually what the Russian revolutionaries were hoping for. Russia was hoping that a true socialist Germany would help develop Russia. The Soviet State was actually quite progressive and democratic in the beginning. Lenin did create some of the least favorate aspects of the Soviet State, secret police for example but every country has a secret police to root out 'enemies' of the state. Unfortunatly in an attempt to modernize and secure the USSR Stalin took the secret police to an extreme. He also got rid of any democracy and eliminated rights in order to create massive economic growth.

As you can see if Germany would have been a Socialist State then it would not have been neccessary for the USSR to be so extremist and hopefully Stalin would not have came to power.

I know all you Marxists out there will love to point out that this move towards globalisation is simply shifting the proletariat to a different group of people but I will argue that revolution under such circumstances is pracitically impossible.
Normally when you say something like that, you put forward an argument. There is a global class system now, and communications difficulties make global communist revolution difficult.

If you're referring to the fact that if a country goes communist while all its neighbours are capitalist, it will be a failed state, well this was already recognised by Trotsky. He advocated an assertive foreign policy to give support to communist groups in other countries.

So? If anything, that just highlights how capitalism has created an unstoppable hell on earth.

VICTORY!!!!

Heh heh… little do they know… the plot is nearly ripe…

Communisim fails because only lazy people who don't want to work support it.

VICTORY!!!!

DENIED!!!!!!

Communisim fails because only lazy people who don't want to work support it.

I'm a communist, i'm not a lazy person and I want to work.

You miss an important distinction here. Packs of wolves do not hunt other wolves. Without cooperation in the form of society, we would not survive.

Actually wolves do fight other wolves for territory but more importantly wolves fight within the pack. Wolves (and humans) are social but they are also political. They live in hierachies with lowly young wolves and elderly at the bottom and fit strong wolves at the top culminating in the Alpha male. They cooperate but they are also in competion with each other, who the hell wants to be a lowly wolf?

In the same way human beings, who are baisically animals do cooperate for mutual benfit but also struggle within the system for dominance. Without this struggle there is no reason to strive to be better then your peers, merely not to be thrown out. Hence capitalism although may not look so neat on paper is more efficient in practice.

Capitalism will end one day. I don't know when and I don't know what will replace it.

Actually wolves do fight other wolves for territory but more importantly wolves fight within the pack. Wolves (and humans) are social but they are also political. They live in hierachies with lowly young wolves and elderly at the bottom and fit strong wolves at the top culminating in the Alpha male. They cooperate but they are also in competion with each other, who the hell wants to be a lowly wolf?

Suffering is a natural part of progress. I am not saying that we should enhance suffering, just that it is fruitless to try and completely eliminate it.