NationStates Jolt Archive

...ok not really, that would be icky, moving on.
I am wondering if and one here is or would consider them selves to be communist?

While I like the ideals of communism, and have, in fact, lived in a commune... I know that in practical terms communism does not work on the large scale. It can be quite effective on a scale where every member knows every other member, but once the group expands past the point where all members are acquainted, the system falls apart.

So no, I would not say I am a communist, but that I wish it were practical to be one.

...ok not really, that would be icky, moving on.
I am wondering if and one here is or would consider them selves to be communist?

Great... after I hack mine off... wait while I make a trip down the hall to the Emergency room...

I'd consider myself to be a communist...an anarchist communist, but still a communist. Why do you ask?

I'd consider myself to be a communist...an anarchist communist, but still a communist. Why do you ask?

Because +1.

I consider myself anti-communist.

I have slight libertarian socialist ( read: anarchist) sympathies but I fall just left of centre in general.

Trilby63;11802134']I have slight libertarian socialist ( read: contradiction in terms) sympathies but I fall just left of centre in general.

Fixed for accuracy.

Fixed for accuracy.

You're thinking of anarcho-capitalism.

Trilby63;11802174']You're thinking of anarcho-capitalism.

No, there's no possible way to be both libertarian and socialist. You're misunderstanding one or both terms.

Full-blown socialist.

...ok not really, that would be icky, moving on.
I am wondering if and one here is or would consider them selves to be communist?

Read my sig.

Fixed for accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Yes, because someone writing a wiki article about something makes it true. :rolleyes: What's described there is a perverted form of communism.

The reason that I ask is because I have been rather curious about it and I want to ask some on who considers them selves to be communist some questions, instead of having to wade through a bunch of second source junk.

The reason that I ask is because I have been rather curious about it and I want to ask some on who considers them selves to be communist some questions, instead of having to wade through a bunch of second source junk.

so what are your questions?

so what are your questions?

well how cosly does "communisum" match what is in the communist manifesto and is communisum any thing more than a way for a small group of people to over through a gov't and then become the ruling class? for the later part that waht history has shown but is that truly the idea?

well how cosly does "communisum" match what is in the communist manifesto and is communisum any thing more than a way for a small group of people to over through a gov't and then become the ruling class? for the later part that waht history has shown but is that truly the idea?

i don't think that is the intention of most communists. well probably of a small minority but you always have some people trying to exploit a system.
most communists i know have really good intentions, but unfortunatly the ones who want to come to power are often the most ruthless. in addition to that there is also the fact that most communist countries have always been under extreme external and internal pressure, and needed to take extreme mesures to defend the revolution. that's probably why so many communist revolutions ended in dictatorships.
but marxism is only one form of communism. there are several other forms, but most of them haven't been tested yet.

do you think that if communisum was revamped and was accepted through peace insted of being instuted by a revolution it would have a better chance of servival?

do you think that if communisum was revamped and was accepted through peace insted of being instuted by a revolution it would have a better chance of servival?Yes, absolutely.

The reason that I ask is because I have been rather curious about it and I want to ask some on who considers them selves to be communist some questions, instead of having to wade through a bunch of second source junk.

I would like to think I have strong Communism beliefs. so the short answer is: yes.

No, there's no possible way to be both libertarian and socialist. You're misunderstanding one or both terms.

social libertarianism, economic socialism. what's the problem?
that's what i am. i did lean heavily communist, and still am in theory... but i know the world isn't ready for communism yet (link that with Marx's historical materialism theory and you'll get where i'm coming from), so for now in practical terms i'll be a nice little socialist :)

social libertarianism, economic socialism. what's the problem?
that's what i am. i did lean heavily communist, and still am in theory... but i know the world isn't ready for communism yet (link that with Marx's historical materialism theory and you'll get where i'm coming from), so for now in practical terms i'll be a nice little socialist :)

that's a cowardly thing to do! ;)

do you think that if communisum was revamped and was accepted through peace insted of being instuted by a revolution it would have a better chance of servival?
yes


but marxism is only one form of communism. there are several other forms, but most of them haven't been tested yet.

^ important to consider, that.

one of the reasons the left is so fragmented is because its a political spectrum consisting first and foremost of idealism... as such there'll be a lot of contention and disagreement as to which version of the 'ideal' is best, how to get there, and what that 'ideal' is anyway. the right tends to have it easier for the most part - realism is simply what works.
at least, that's the way i see it :)

that's a cowardly thing to do! ;)

oi! people aren't ready - that's my main consideration. the transition to communism has to come with a transition to an altrustic mindset for people.... that takes time, and has to be slow when greed and the self-serving nature inherent in today's societies are perpetuated by the capitalist system we currently live under. a modern communist revolution could only result in tyranny and dictatorships again - socialism and slow democratic change is the only way to go! :)

oi! people aren't ready - that's my main consideration. the transition to communism has to come with a transition to an altrustic mindset for people.... that takes time, and has to be slow when greed and the self-serving nature inherent in today's societies are perpetuated by the capitalist system we currently live under. a modern communist revolution could only result in tyranny and dictatorships again - socialism and slow democratic change is the only way to go! :)

slow my ass! armed revolt! (I agree with your position, but I so like to force extremes concerning this issue.)

one of the reasons the left is so fragmented is because its a political spectrum consisting first and foremost of idealism... as such there'll be a lot of contention and disagreement as to which version of the 'ideal' is best, how to get there, and what that 'ideal' is anyway.:)

you are absolutly right. some people on the left argue more with eachother then they tend to argue against the right (e.g. the conflicts between stalinists and anarchosyndicalists in the spanish civil war, wich, amongst other factors of course, led to the victory of Franco).
i think this is one of the greatest dangers to the left, and in order to gain more power i think that they should start to look past stupid dogma's etc. and focus on the more important issues. this has happened on more than one occasion, but those were mostly when they were united against one goal (demonstrations against the G8 etc). but not on a larger scale, in elections for instance; here in Belgium we probably have 4-5 smaller left parties (not counting the social democrats and the greens) that mostly don't gain more than 1% in local elections. it would be better if they could cooperate, that way they would have a broader platform, and more money for campaigning.
but i don't see that happening any time soon.

I am wondering if and one here is or would consider them selves to be communist?
I'd certainly consider it, if you gave me ebough money.

I am wondering if and one here is or would consider them selves to be communist?

I'm an anarchist communist.

No, there's no possible way to be both libertarian and socialist. You're misunderstanding one or both terms.

Do you want to justify that statement?

I'm a Banana Republic. :p

I'm a Banana Republic. :p

Irelnad is the worlds largest manufacturer of bananas, despite the fact it does not grow any.

Yes, absolutely.

so why doesn't this happen, or why hsn't any one tryed it?
also the idea of communisum has been around for over a hundred years so why hasn't anyone brought it up to speed with modern socioty?
also how exactly do religion and communisum fit together?

so why doesn't this happen, or why hsn't any one tryed it? Usually when people try it, it gets crushed by large armies opposing it. It doesn't help that it usually occurs in the midst of wars.
I think also, that part of it has to do with countries not allowing secession.

also the idea of communisum has been around for over a hundred years so why hasn't anyone brought it up to speed with modern socioty?How do you mean?

also how exactly do religion and communisum fit together?Well, communists are supposed to be anti-religion, but that seems silly to me.

Usually when people try it, it gets crushed by large armies opposing it. It doesn't help that it usually occurs in the midst of wars.
I think also, that part of it has to do with countries not allowing secession.

[QUOTE]How do you mean?
well i just finished teh maifesto...parts of it seem out dated, really out dated. i understadn teh industraial rev. thing but it seems to me the story could be continued. that sort of thing.

Well, communists are supposed to be anti-religion, but that seems silly to me.
why are they suposed to be anti religion thats the bit i dont really get.

well i just finished teh maifesto...parts of it seem out dated, really out dated. i understadn teh industraial rev. thing but it seems to me the story could be continued. that sort of thing..

the manifesto is outdated because it wat written so long ago. there have been a lot of updates and new forms of communism since it was written. modern day communistic parties mostly are totaly different from the ideas in the manifesto.

why are they suposed to be anti religion thats the bit i dont really get.

i don't think that is the most important part. most modern communists have other things to worry about than religion, and i think that they consider it to be a personal thing. nowadays religion has a different purpose than in the past. religion was used to make the people obey, and to keep them from revolting against the ruling system (this is very obvious in medieval times, when religion was used to defend feudalism).
nowadays politicians have other ways to supress a revolution.

well i just finished teh maifesto...parts of it seem out dated, really out dated. i understadn teh industraial rev. thing but it seems to me the story could be continued. that sort of thing.Well, in a way it is, because it doesn't take into account the welfare state.

why are they suposed to be anti religion thats the bit i dont really get.There are a few reasons, one of which is that religions are often the biggest supporters of capitalism, with their own land grants and holdings.

There IS a possible way to be both libertarian and socialist. The two terms refer to entirely different aspects of political belief (socialist=economic stance, libertarian=government stance).

Fixed for accuracy.

alright so what are the differant branches of communisum?