Marxism/communism/socialism

[Skweeky]

Well, a quite interesting discussion started in the lounge about these topics.

My view:

Yes, Marx can be seen as father of all communism, but it was never his intention to create communism. There is a huge difference between marxism and communism. One can say that the idea of Marx put into practice can be called communism. The idea was good.....what people made of it isn't. Communism is most certainly NOT socialism. Those two things get mixed up very often, but are in reality quite different. Communism is about absolute equality, which doesn't work because there are always people who want more and have the means to get more. Socialism is about equality too, agreed, but not in the same way ; socialism says that the people who are most capable of leading a nation( for example) should do everything to make it as good as possible for everyone, they should live for the people so to speak.

[mrcall1969]

I totally agree...Socialism is more linked to Marxism than Communism..
Communism can work in theory..but in practice it's human nature for one person to want more and others suffer because of that. Socialism is quite different.

[noname12]

Hmmmm... interesting point, but in communism Equality goes as far as living some have over done it others belittled it.

Communism in its essence is Socialism with as you say more for the common man.
The socialist Views is of Islamic origin which if you look at it is indeed almost what communism is, equality for all, people live the same and have the same stuff and none are excluded due to there social class.

The main bulk of of it all is the fact that all facilities are public and shared by all those deemed as nationals of the state, you cannot purchase a better life you all have the same education the same hospital care the same protection.

As for the Marx I need to look into that a little bit more as I am not 100% on that particular subject.

But as for Socialism and Communism, they are in essence one and the same, with a few extra's either side.

And Marx is seen as the Father of Communism but I believe that later people saw Lenin to be the father.

A small note though in Lenins will he stated that Stalin should not have power for his psycotic tendancies.

[mrcall1969]

That's all very well but....Communism is very different to Socialism, true, they're on the same side of the political fence, but thats where the similarities end.
In an ideal world Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work, Socialism on the other hand is being proved to work throughout the world, except for perhaps here in Britain, where the ruling Socialist party are edging further and further to the right of centre of the spectrum.

[chalice]

Waiting For The Great Leap Forwards by Billy Bragg.

It may have been Camelot for Jack and Jacqueline
But on the Che Guevara highway filling up with gasoline
Fidel Castro's brother spies a rich lady who's crying
Over luxury's disappointment
So he walks over and he's trying
To sympathize with her but thinks that he should warn her
That the Third World is just around the corner
In the Soviet Union a scientist is blinded
By the resumption of nuclear testing and he is reminded
That Dr Robert Oppenheimer's optimism fell
At the first hurdle
In the Cheese Pavilion and the only noise I hear
Is the sound of people stacking chairs
And mopping up spilt beer
And someone asking questions and basking in the light
Of the fifteen fame filled minutes of the fanzine writer
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forwards
Jumble sales are organized and pamphlets have been posted
Even after closing time there's still parties to be hosted
You can be active with the activists
Or sleep in with the sleepers
While you're waiting for the Great Leap Forwards
One leap forwards, two leaps back
Will politics get me the sack?
Here comes the future and you can't run from it
If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it
It's a mighty long way down rock 'n roll
From Top of the Pops to drawing the dole
If no one seems to understands
Start your own revolution, cut out the middleman
In a perfect world we'd all sing in tune
But this is reality so give me some room
So join the struggle while you may
The Revolution is just a t-shirt away

[Skweeky]

No, Marx is the creator of the idea, not of what other people made of it.
In a communist regime everyone should be equal, but they are not because people need leaders. Those leaders tell others how to live and in this world, in this reality, such a regime can only survive with very very low standards and there is no one who wants to live like that. In the Sovjet Union a very small percentage of the population had most of the money while the biggest part was starving or freezing to death out on the street, and that's when it's almost the same as fascism (ty m ;) ).
Socialism accepts the idea that there should be leaders and offers people the choice to choose their own leaders. Everyone is given the same things, yes, but only the most necessary things. It is allowed to get more if you work harder, which is normal. That's why communism doesn't work. Some people don't work, other people work very hard but they all get the same thing, which isn't much. Socialism says that everyone has the RIGHT to have his basic needs satisfied, when someone wants more he/she has to work for it

[noname12]

Originally posted by mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 21:37
That's all very well but....Communism is very different to Socialism, true, they're on the same side of the political fence, but thats where the similarities end.
In an ideal world Communism is a great idea, but it just doesn't work, Socialism on the other hand is being proved to work throughout the world, except for perhaps here in Britain, where the ruling Socialist party are edging further and further to the right of centre of the spectrum.
Thats the thing though, Both are not true to the exact words, if both where true then you would be hard pressed to find differences.

People played with those two ideas and now it is distorted into something that is no longer recognized by the Original ideals that where set in place.

In the true sence of both words they should be very similiar, but we cannot control those who wish to change them and have the power to.

[noname12]

Originally posted by Skweeky@31 October 2003 - 21:42
No, Marx is the creator of the idea, not of what other people made of it.
In a communist regime everyone should be equal, but they are not because people need leaders. Those leaders tell others how to live and in this world, in this reality, such a regime can only survive with very very low standards and there is no one who wants to live like that. In the Sovjet Union a very small percentage of the population had most of the money while the biggest part was starving or freezing to death out on the street, and that's when it's almost the same as fascism (ty m ;) ).
Socialism accepts the idea that there should be leaders and offers people the choice to choose their own leaders. Everyone is given the same things, yes, but only the most necessary things. It is allowed to get more if you work harder, which is normal. That's why communism doesn't work. Some people don't work, other people work very hard but they all get the same thing, which isn't much. Socialism says that everyone has the RIGHT to have his basic needs satisfied, when someone wants more he/she has to work for it
If it was implimented to the truth, every one would be given sufficient funds, equality is not ment by the size of house but the quality in which you live.

Rich people ate while poor people starved, it was aiming to stop such things. To purchase things and so on that is upto the individual not the state.

It comes down to the implimentation of it and the person doing the implimentation.

[Skweeky]

Are you saying communism was aimed at stopping people from starving?

Tsaristic (sp?) Russia created a huge problem, and there was a lot of poverty, all Lenin did was look at the problem, saw the genious of it and manipulated the system to his own advantage....THAT is communism. You are confusing two different things


BTW: I am surprised no one is offended with the fact you have a pic of Stalin in your sig....if you'd have one of Hitler (because they're equally bad) you'd be kicked of the board in no time....

[noname12]

Originally posted by Skweeky@31 October 2003 - 21:56
Are you saying communism was aimed at stopping people from starving?

Tsaristic (sp?) Russia created a huge problem, and there was a lot of poverty, all Lenin did was look at the problem, saw the genious of it and manipulated the system to his own advantage....THAT is communism. You are confusing two different things
Trotski saw the advantage, Lenin saw the advantage, these minds where aiming to use the resources of Russia to benifit all.
The communists aim was just that for all to benifit from the rewards of mother russia.

You cannot blaim the failing of it on the idea, but you can blame it on the man.

[Biggles]

The idea that resources could be held for a common good is not new. I think Acts chapter 4 verses 32-35 are relevant here. :) I simply throw it in as an indication that the idea of a simple communism has old historical roots. Well ok .. I am being a tad contentious, sorry. :(

Marx took the whole thing much further and suggested, using a form of Hegelian dialectical materialism, that such a society would be the inevitable result of dynamic interaction between interested parties. That is, feudalism gave way to the power of the merchants because ultimately the feudal Lords became reliant on the wealth created by the urban merchants. In turn, the urban merchants could function better with free labour and all the tensions that would bring etc., etc.,

Whilst certain elements of the process are self evident there was perhaps an overly simplistic assumption that the end result would be a utopian workers paradise. One could, with the advantage of hindsight, argue that there could many loops and dynamic interactions before any such state is reached. In a sense Trotsky could see this and said sod it lets foster revolution everywhere and nip it all in the bud. Stalin, on the other hand, was quite happy shooting those he was convinced were trying to usurp power at home.

Lenin was somewhere between the two with the added gift of actually inspiring devotion (rather than fear) in those who heard him deliver his message. Quite where Russia and the revolution would have gone had he lived is anyone's guess.

[Skweeky]

Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages of MARXISM and turned it into COMMUNISM by putting the idea into practice.

I do not blame the idea, I already said Marxism isn't a bad idea. You're not being consistent in your arguments.

[chalice]

Dialectical materialism, Biggles.- My favourite brand of capitalism. Wot, wot.

[Biggles]

:D

Not easy to get into a can but if packaged right anything will sell.

[noname12]

I think I took the wrong side in this argument :lol:

I do not see what we are arguing now?

The essence of communism is socialism. socialism is the essence of a political system created 1400 years ago. both have been distorted in a way.

Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages, they had a mathmatical mind, money, resources = strength and power (from what I have read) Stalin pops in makes it pretty much a Police state and ruins every thing.

[Skweeky]

no no no

MARXISM is the essence of SOCIALISM

The essence of COMMUNISM is FASCISM....

Communism is not the same thing as marxism

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by noname12@31 October 2003 - 23:06
I think I took the wrong side in this argument :lol:

I do not see what we are arguing now?

The essence of communism is socialism. socialism is the essence of a political system created 1400 years ago. both have been distorted in a way.

Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages, they had a mathmatical mind, money, resources = strength and power (from what I have read) Stalin pops in makes it pretty much a Police state and ruins every thing.
Hmmmm Seems strange to have a mad, despot dictator for a sig then...

[noname12]

Originally posted by Skweeky@31 October 2003 - 22:08
no no no

MARXISM is the essence of SOCIALISM

The essence of COMMUNISM is FASCISM....

Communism is not the same thing as marxism
We have strayed me thinks :blink:

My research shows that socialism is actually the Islamic political system put in place by non other then Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) him self.

A few hundred years later, things where made, then communism pops up.

Communism is aimed at equality, same as the original socialism.

Communism allows all service to be available to all men, again Socialism.

Communism does not base quality of life on riches, each man can have what is available to the next, same as socialism.


I'm getting very confused, very fast :lol:

[noname12]

Originally posted by mrcall1969+31 October 2003 - 22:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 31 October 2003 - 22:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-noname12@31 October 2003 - 23:06
I think I took the wrong side in this argument&nbsp; :lol:

I do not see what we are arguing now?

The essence of communism is socialism. socialism is the essence of a political system created 1400 years ago. both have been distorted in a way.

Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages, they had a mathmatical mind, money, resources = strength and power (from what I have read) Stalin pops in makes it pretty much a Police state and ruins every thing.
Hmmmm Seems strange to have a mad, despot dictator for a sig then... [/b][/quote]
Hes the only Soviet figure I could find at the time :)

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by noname12+31 October 2003 - 23:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (noname12 @ 31 October 2003 - 23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 22:09
<!--QuoteBegin-noname12@31 October 2003 - 23:06
I think I took the wrong side in this argument :lol:

I do not see what we are arguing now?

The essence of communism is socialism. socialism is the essence of a political system created 1400 years ago. both have been distorted in a way.

Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages, they had a mathmatical mind, money, resources = strength and power (from what I have read) Stalin pops in makes it pretty much a Police state and ruins every thing.
Hmmmm Seems strange to have a mad, despot dictator for a sig then...
Hes the only Soviet figure I could find at the time :) [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s it...I&#39;m out of here :angry:

[chalice]

Originally posted by Skweeky@31 October 2003 - 22:08
no no no

MARXISM is the essence of SOCIALISM

The essence of COMMUNISM is FASCISM....

Communism is not the same thing as marxism
That does beg the question, though, Skweeky...
Why would Marx And Engels put their names to The Communist Manifesto?

[noname12]

Originally posted by mrcall1969+31 October 2003 - 22:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 31 October 2003 - 22:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by noname12@31 October 2003 - 23:12

Originally posted by mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 22:09
<!--QuoteBegin-noname12@31 October 2003 - 23:06
I think I took the wrong side in this argument :lol:

I do not see what we are arguing now?

The essence of communism is socialism. socialism is the essence of a political system created 1400 years ago. both have been distorted in a way.

Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages, they had a mathmatical mind, money, resources = strength and power (from what I have read) Stalin pops in makes it pretty much a Police state and ruins every thing.
Hmmmm Seems strange to have a mad, despot dictator for a sig then...
Hes the only Soviet figure I could find at the time :)
That&#39;s it...I&#39;m out of here :angry: [/b][/quote]
:lol: Sorry its not to your tastes ;)

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by noname12+31 October 2003 - 23:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (noname12 @ 31 October 2003 - 23:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 22:14

Originally posted by noname12@31 October 2003 - 23:12

Originally posted by mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 22:09
<!--QuoteBegin-noname12@31 October 2003 - 23:06
I think I took the wrong side in this argument :lol:

I do not see what we are arguing now?

The essence of communism is socialism. socialism is the essence of a political system created 1400 years ago. both have been distorted in a way.

Trotski and Lenin saw the advantages, they had a mathmatical mind, money, resources = strength and power (from what I have read) Stalin pops in makes it pretty much a Police state and ruins every thing.
Hmmmm Seems strange to have a mad, despot dictator for a sig then...
Hes the only Soviet figure I could find at the time :)
That&#39;s it...I&#39;m out of here :angry:
:lol: Sorry its not to your tastes ;) [/b][/quote]
It&#39;s not about "tastes", correct me if I&#39;m wrong but you seem to have liking/interest for Soviet related things, so, I am assuming that you belive in the Communist/Soviet ideal.

The trouble is your images and arguements are contradictory.

[Skweeky]

Yes...I also think this discussion is rather useless. You seem to think that what is called marxism and what is called communism are the same thing. They are not. Maybe we can continue this discussion as soon as you realize that... :)


And Stalin the only communist figure? I cannot believe there are no pictures of people like Trotsky, Lenin, Che Guevara..... ;)


But thank you for this debate

[Biggles]

The big problem, as I see it, is the concept, which Trotsky exemplified, that change can only be achieved through revolution. As someone pointed out a long time ago, "the trouble with revolutions is that the people who like shooting people get to the top".

Organic change in which people vote with their feet for a more equitable system is I guess what Skweeky is refering to as Socialism. I have some sympathy with this position.

[chalice]

Wasn&#39;t it Troksky (Chemical Chance, remember him) who called for global revolution? A world in constant revoultion? This, I believe, was the ideological schism. And also his undoing?

[Rat Faced]

Every country that has tried to implement "Communist" state has ended up with "State Capitalism", hence Skweeky claiming that Communism is related to Fascism.

The implementation of Communism is based on Socialist/Marxist principles, which is why Marx put his name to the manifesto....

However human nature is the same the world over, the people that rise to the top (the leaders) are in general those that are prepared to go that extra mile to get into power (and not get caught)...this is not the same as those that are best suited to lead.

Once in power of a "Communist" state, a "Leader" is in the perfect situation to stay there, as it is assumed that he is the best fitted in the basic principle and as such is given the power of the state... this power is then used to make sure no one will "Take Over".

In essence they have the same power, and use the same methodology as someone that is supposed to be on the opposite side of the fence... ie a Fascist Dictator.


As i have said many times....extremism is bad, no matter where it comes from.

[noname12]

Ladies and Gentleman.

I spoke to a friend of mine who is a expert in this field and I must say I am rather wrong in this case.

Communism - Everything is state run, everything is given out equally to all, there is no room to fall back but no room to move forward.

Socialism - The bulk is state run but there is room for free enterprise, you can move forward but no one falls behind.

Islamic Politics - Socialism but with a religious emphasis.

Not that much difference.

Soviet Union Shall neither Crush you or Inflate you. You shall give into the Union or be paid equally regardless.

The end.

Thank you. :)

[noname12]

Carl Marx - Thinker, came up the the communist Idea, so he is the father. Student of Marx said that Communism is not Implementable, Socialism is a better route.
Theories of Marx being a Fraud released, accusations of him trying to further jewish economic beliefs rose.

Trotski - Fellow communist, His ideals was that communism had to be introduced in steps, first socialism then Communism. When communism gained more power he was ousted and he fled to America.

Lenin - Shared the idea&#39;s of Trotski but could not wait and pushed for the Communist state to be implimented as he saw it as the natural Evolution of polotics.

[Rat Faced]

As i said... there has never been a successful implementation of a Communist State, in the manner it is supposed to exist.

The Soviet Union lost the last claim to being a "Socialist" state in 1929, with the desolution of the "Troika" and at the same time making Trade Unions illegal.

In the 1930&#39;s, it in essence re-introduced Slave Labour (impossible in any type of Socialist State) as Stalins reign of terror really took off....

[chalice]

Originally posted by noname12@31 October 2003 - 22:53
Carl Marx - Thinker, came up the the communist Idea, so he is the father. Student of Marx said that Communism is not Implementable, Socialism is a better route.
Theories of Marx being a Fraud released, accusations of him trying to further jewish economic beliefs rose.

Trotski - Fellow communist, His ideals was that communism had to be introduced in steps, first socialism then Communism. When communism gained more power he was ousted and he fled to America.

Lenin - Shared the idea&#39;s of Trotski but could not wait and pushed for the Communist state to be implimented as he saw it as the natural Evolution of polotics.
It just shows how westernised the East has become.
Marx&#39;s christian name used to have a strong Ukranian "K".

[noname12]

Trotski - He saw the plight of the Russian people under the tzar, after needlessly going into the 1st world war and the suffering of people and the huge gap between the ruling class and the working class, he felt something needed to be done. He and Lenin saw the natural step forward is Communism to bring stability and prosperaty to the Provinces. There idea was the utilize Russia&#39;s rich resources for the State which inturn will give power back to the people. The power of russia was in its economy.

Lenin - shared the same views.

[chalice]

Originally posted by noname12@31 October 2003 - 22:59
Trotski - He saw the plight of the Russian people under the tzar, after needlessly going into the 1st world war and the suffering of people and the huge gap between the ruling class and the working class, he felt something needed to be done. He and Lenin saw the natural step forward is Communism to bring stability and prosperaty to the Provinces. There idea was the utilize Russia&#39;s rich resources for the State which inturn will give power back to the people. The power of russia was in its economy.

Lenin - shared the same views.
Is that Leon Trotsky?
Forgive me, Noname, but your political roots seem somewhat undernourished.

[noname12]

Originally posted by chalice+31 October 2003 - 23:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 31 October 2003 - 23:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-noname12@31 October 2003 - 22:59
Trotski - He saw the plight of the Russian people under the tzar, after needlessly going into the 1st world war and the suffering of people and the huge gap between the ruling class and the working class, he felt something needed to be done. He and Lenin saw the natural step forward is Communism to bring stability and prosperaty to the Provinces. There idea was the utilize Russia&#39;s rich resources for the State which inturn will give power back to the people. The power of russia was in its economy.

Lenin - shared the same views.
Is that Leon Trotsky?
Forgive me, Noname, but your political roots seem somewhat undernourished. [/b][/quote]
Man dont ask me spelling, if I was to spell it the way it is in my language then it would be "trootiskee"

[chalice]

Originally posted by noname12+31 October 2003 - 23:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (noname12 @ 31 October 2003 - 23:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by chalice@31 October 2003 - 23:11
<!--QuoteBegin-noname12@31 October 2003 - 22:59
Trotski - He saw the plight of the Russian people under the tzar, after needlessly going into the 1st world war and the suffering of people and the huge gap between the ruling class and the working class, he felt something needed to be done. He and Lenin saw the natural step forward is Communism to bring stability and prosperaty to the Provinces. There idea was the utilize Russia&#39;s rich resources for the State which inturn will give power back to the people. The power of russia was in its economy.

Lenin - shared the same views.
Is that Leon Trotsky?
Forgive me, Noname, but your political roots seem somewhat undernourished.
Man dont ask me spelling, if I was to spell it the way it is in my language then it would be "trootiskee" [/b][/quote]
LOL

[noname12]

Exactly :lol:

[MagicNakor]

I go to sleep, and look what happens.

The Soviet Union is one of the few areas that I&#39;ve got "modern-day" historical experience in. Most of you probably know my knowledge runs more to the mid-ancient historical.

However, while I&#39;d really enjoy jumping into this thread, I can&#39;t seem to find a coherent arguement. It all seems pretty confused. Perhaps we can start over? ;)

But for Skweeky:

http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/may_02/trotsky.jpg

:ninja:

[noname12]

I&#39;m stumped, I just answered everything I could :lol: I showed the similarities, and bla bla, now you guys argue the implimentation of it.

[chalice]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@31 October 2003 - 23:16
I go to sleep, and look what happens.

The Soviet Union is one of the few areas that I&#39;ve got "modern-day" historical experience in. Most of you probably know my knowledge runs more to the mid-ancient historical.

However, while I&#39;d really enjoy jumping into this thread, I can&#39;t seem to find a coherent arguement. It all seems pretty confused. Perhaps we can start over? ;)

But for Skweeky:

http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/may_02/trotsky.jpg

:ninja:
Well, thanks for that, MN. As ever, we&#39;re left wanting for your wisdom.

[noname12]

I hear by confiscate that picture for my own devious ways.

Meh actually never mind, Stalin&#39;s quotes are pretty nice.

[mrcall1969]

Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.

Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.

[chalice]

Originally posted by mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 23:27
Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.

Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.
This is a good point.
Lets change this thread to are noname12&#39;s avatar and sig a provokative incitement?

[MagicNakor]

It would be rather pointless to rehash the three pages.

Skweeky started with a point, but it got rather lost, which is why I suggested starting over.

I&#39;ve seen better from you chalice, than the sniping you&#39;ve contributed to this thread.

:ninja:

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by chalice+1 November 2003 - 00:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 1 November 2003 - 00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 23:27
Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.

Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.
This is a good point.
Lets change this thread to are noname12&#39;s avatar and sig a provokative incitement? [/b][/quote]
Nah...let&#39;s not, I don&#39;t think he&#39;s the type that would welcome the attention...........or am i wrong <_< <_<

[Skweeky]

well...

What it was really about was the question in what way marxism, communism and socialism are connected, and in what way they differ (gr?)

[chalice]

MN, so it&#39;s alright for yourself to snipe?
It seems to me your trademark " ;) " excuses all.
If a topic fails to reach your brow, look over it.

[Rat Faced]

Political Definitions for Skweeky (http://www.anvari.org/fun/Misc/Political_Definitions.html)

[Skweeky]

Are you saying I wouldn&#39;t understand it if it wasn&#39;t explained with cows? <_<




:lol: :lol: :lol: mooooooooo

[MediaSlayer]

i *will* keep posting onion (http://www.theonion.com/onion3842/marxists_apartment.html) links until i get a convert :lol:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@1 November 2003 - 00:03
i *will* keep posting onion (http://www.theonion.com/onion3842/marxists_apartment.html) links until i get a convert :lol:

instead of being hated and ostracized by the world at large as socialist countries usually are


However, there are no Marxist countries, and never has been...and that is the way they are attempting to live.

"Communist" States, although starting off as trying to attain Marxism, ...never do, and arent "Socialist", within a very short span of time either. After all, shooting your citizens for disagreeing is not "Socialist" by any stretch of the imagination. :P

No "true" Communist country has ever existed....after the initial period of establishment.

I would deny strongly, therefore, that most "Socialist" countries are hated and ostracized...

[MagicNakor]

It&#39;s not a "trademark." It&#39;s a habit I was forced into long ago on a BBS. Thus, anything that could possibly be mistaken as curmudgeonry ends up with one.


:ninja:

[chalice]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@1 November 2003 - 00:45
It&#39;s not a "trademark." It&#39;s a habit I was forced into long ago on a BBS. Thus, anything that could possibly be mistaken as curmudgeonry ends up with one.


:ninja:
Patronised by a habit. There&#39;s something biblical there.

[blackhatknight]

I&#39;m not sure i argee with this but i once heard it argued the earliest form of cummunisim was found in the Bible after the day of pentecost where the early followers sold their possession and life in something a long the lines of a hippy communion

[noname12]

Originally posted by mrcall1969+31 October 2003 - 23:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 &#064; 31 October 2003 - 23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by chalice@1 November 2003 - 00:32
<!--QuoteBegin-mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 23:27
Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.

Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.
This is a good point.
Lets change this thread to are noname12&#39;s avatar and sig a provokative incitement?
Nah...let&#39;s not, I don&#39;t think he&#39;s the type that would welcome the attention...........or am i wrong <_< <_< [/b][/quote]
The avatar... I explained why I like it and it was made by friend pol (thanks)

The sig is nothing more then a sig, if you are going to base what you think you know about me on my sig then you are not worth speaking to.

As for attention, if I needed it I would have said I support the soviet union, although those with a Brain know I dont as I am a JEW and RELIGION IS BANNED IN COMMUNISM. Think about that one.

I like the idea of Communism minus the banned religion, which basically is socialism, give or take a few ideals. You have problem with that live with it :)

I did not ask for any of this attention to my sig and avatar, if you look back you are the one thats been hounding from the beginning after them.

[noname12]

Originally posted by Skweeky@31 October 2003 - 23:40
well...

What it was really about was the question in what way marxism, communism and socialism are connected, and in what way they differ (gr?)
I think I threw us off, but in the end I did try to show the similarities, you can base a new arguement on that one.

[noname12]

Originally posted by noname12@31 October 2003 - 22:50
Ladies and Gentleman.

I spoke to a friend of mine who is a expert in this field and I must say I am rather wrong in this case.

Communism - Everything is state run, everything is given out equally to all, there is no room to fall back but no room to move forward.

Socialism - The bulk is state run but there is room for free enterprise, you can move forward but no one falls behind.

Islamic Politics - Socialism but with a religious emphasis.

Not that much difference.

Soviet Union Shall neither Crush you or Inflate you. You shall give into the Union or be paid equally regardless.

The end.

Thank you. :)
Didnt add marxism because I still dont know much about that subject.

[chalice]

Originally posted by noname12+1 November 2003 - 02:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (noname12 @ 1 November 2003 - 02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Skweeky@31 October 2003 - 23:40
well...

What it was really about was the question in what way marxism, communism and socialism are connected, and in what way they differ (gr?)
I think I threw us off, but in the end I did try to show the similarities, you can base a new arguement on that one. [/b][/quote]
Hate to raise the argument but what is an arguement?
How&#39;s that for sniping, MN?

[noname12]

Meh, Arguement, debate same thing.

[echidna]

Originally posted by noname12+1 November 2003 - 12:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (noname12 &#064; 1 November 2003 - 12:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 23:37

Originally posted by chalice@1 November 2003 - 00:32
<!--QuoteBegin-mrcall1969@31 October 2003 - 23:27
Seems to me to be pretty strange that you seem to be advocating the power and strength of the Soviet Union but your avatar shows the hammer and sickle, the very images of the Union, being blasted apart.

Makes me wonder if you just like the "images" and are infact trolling.
This is a good point.
Lets change this thread to are noname12&#39;s avatar and sig a provokative incitement?
Nah...let&#39;s not, I don&#39;t think he&#39;s the type that would welcome the attention...........or am i wrong <_< <_<
The avatar... I explained why I like it and it was made by friend pol (thanks)

The sig is nothing more then a sig, if you are going to base what you think you know about me on my sig then you are not worth speaking to.

As for attention, if I needed it I would have said I support the soviet union, although those with a Brain know I dont as I am a JEW and RELIGION IS BANNED IN COMMUNISM. Think about that one.

I like the idea of Communism minus the banned religion, which basically is socialism, give or take a few ideals. You have problem with that live with it :)

I did not ask for any of this attention to my sig and avatar, if you look back you are the one thats been hounding from the beginning after them.[/b][/quote]
Through reading this thread i have been depressingly underwhelmed by the excessive ignorance and insensitivity that noname12 has displayed here.

noname12 :: you are parading symbols and images around the board which are potentially offensive and disturbing. as these symbols are the most striking and consistent thing we see when reading your posts so it is likely to be much of the base from which we build our understanding of who/what you are, that&#39;s just the way it is

FYI :: jo stalin oversaw the murders of about 43 000 000 people in the soviet union mostly through excessive forced labour in the &#39;gulag&#39; camps,
he evicted [exiled] the entire populous of chechnya for about thirty years,
he exiled and killed returning POWs from WWII,
he engineered famine as the most cost efficient method for genocide of uncooperative peasants,
in short he makes saddam or pinochet or milosevic look like kindergarten cop.

he is at least as reviled as hitler or pol pot, and his imagery and symbolism could easily be seen as being as offencive as displaying nazi symbolism.

The complete lack of understanding of what symbols you display might mean,
especially from someone advertising their religion as judaism,
is particularly pathetic as i am sure you might find it uncomfortable being in a elevator with a few skin heads with swastikas and national front tattoos on their necks
http://www.fathermonty.org/skinheads.jpg
symbols, by portending far more than they depict, are awesomely powerful, this is something you should know [or work out pretty damn quick]

until you go and read some history for yourself, an &#39;L&#39; on your forehead might fit better. before parading you ignorance as fact any more i would seriously recommend taking the time to read as widely on the topic as you can.
and you should read Solzhenitsyn, &#39;gulag archipelago&#39; and &#39;one day in the life of ivan denisovich&#39; at least.

if you hadn&#39;t wanted your sig and avatar to draw attention why have you used them?
you could always change them or not use one
but definitely change how much you know about the symbols you use
maybe try a ché guevara t-shirt

i had been amused [i actually LOL] at what i had read of you in other threads but finding here that you have no idea what it is that you&#39;re pedalling negates that amusment entirely :angry:

:: on the topic i agree with rat faced that the marxist/communist/socialist state has never actually been tried,
not only because of the power politics and turmoil withing the revolutionary governments, but also because of the besieging of nations trying to institute socialist policy [see. chile, china, cuba, indonesia, iran, malaysia, USSR, vietnam, and more...]
this external interference means that failure was almost a forgone conclusion

also marx saw a disenfranchised urban industrial populations as the bed from which revolution could grow, while all attempts to form a state through marxist revolution have planted their revolt in rural peasant populations,
so there hasn&#39;t yet been a &#39;marxist&#39; revolution as the prerequiste conditions his ideal requires have not preceeded any of the communist/socialist revolutions that have come to pass, i have always thought that the urbanisation of the working class increased the level of literacy within the community thus enabling considerably more complex organisation and education within the revolution.
not to mention the fact that the urban worker has a greater industrial skill base from which to work.

This links to an excellent excert from a new book by noam chomsky, it&#39;s about the history of US policies of terrorism against Cuba under castro, EVERYONE SHOULD READ IT&#33; (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=4394)

:: http://www.grandesychicos.com/images/cubaflag.gif :: [i]Viva Fidel&#33; Viva Cuba&#33; :: http://www.grandesychicos.com/images/cubaflag.gif

[noname12]

:lol: All I can say is dont like it, I dont care, I will keep it just because you want me to change it. If some one finds it offensive they can block it off if they wish.

If I like Stalin or Castro or Who ever the hell else, your not going to change it and no ammount of big words and pathetic insults is going to change it.

Now should I add hitlers picture to the bottom just to annoy you?

Meh, being jewish doesnt stop me from have any opinion I wish, and if I wanted to put hitlers picture in my sig, are you going to stop me?

Go find something else to complain about rather then my sig.

As for all the other things said below, if you indeed find a flaw in what I wrote, point it out ;) I believe pretty much every thing was covered in the revised version of my views due to a nice talk with some one who would make you look like a slack jawed hick who knows as much as Bush :lol:

Communism is from Marx, Marx was a Jewish thinker, He studied religion umong other things such as economics and bla bla. He found that the West cannot run under Religious views any more giving birth to his views. Communism was indeed his child, Socialism was umong it although socialism in this case can be completely derived from the Jewish belief of 90% Economy 10% Spirituality. But Socialism was first perfectly implimented by Islam which was 50%/50%

Oh yeas As I said previously IF they where all implimented in there true meaning they would work :rolleyes: Communism could have been implimented in Russia, it could have worked and would have made the Union a super state that non could rival with. But when the Wishes of Lenin where ignored and Stalin brought in every thing pretty much went down the toilet. And just incase you ask, I find Stalin to be a interesting person, has brains but made such a mistake, I think he is worth my attention for further studies.

Now did I miss anything?

Read above to see the references to the figures, lenin, trotskishi and so on.

Did I miss anything else?

Thank you for finding my posts ammusing, May you laugh at many more including this one :)

.... Isnt fidel castro a human rights violator :blink: :lol:

[noname12]

Finish posting Already, I need to leave <_<

Meh, I must go, I will ready your Insults later :)

[echidna]

Originally posted by noname12@1 November 2003 - 16:33
:lol: All I can say is dont like it, I dont care, I will keep it just because you want me to change it. If some one finds it offensive they can block it off if they wish.

If I like Stalin or Castro or Who ever the hell else, your not going to change it and no ammount of big words and pathetic insults is going to change it.

Now should I add hitlers picture to the bottom just to annoy you?

Meh, being jewish doesnt stop me from have any opinion I wish, and if I wanted to put hitlers picture in my sig, are you going to stop me?

Go find something else to complain about rather then my sig.

As for all the other things said below, if you indeed find a flaw in what I wrote, point it out&nbsp; ;) I believe pretty much every thing was covered in the revised version of my views due to a nice talk with some one who would make you look like a slack jawed hick who knows as much as Bush&nbsp; :lol:

Communism is from Marx, Marx was a Jewish thinker, He studied religion umong other things such as economics and bla bla. He found that the West cannot run under Religious views any more giving birth to his views. Communism was indeed his child, Socialism was umong it although socialism in this case can be completely derived from the Jewish belief of 90% Economy 10% Spirituality. But Socialism was first perfectly implimented by Islam which was 50%/50%

Oh yeas As I said previously IF they where all implimented in there true meaning they would work&nbsp; :rolleyes: Communism could have been implimented in Russia, it could have worked and would have made the Union a super state that non could rival with. But when the Wishes of Lenin where ignored and Stalin brought in every thing pretty much went down the toilet. And just incase you ask, I find Stalin to be a interesting person, has brains but made such a mistake, I think he is worth my attention for further studies.

Now did I miss anything?

Read above to see the references to the figures, lenin, trotskishi and so on.

Did I miss anything else?

Thank you for finding my posts ammusing, May you laugh at many more including this one&nbsp; :)

.... Isnt fidel castro a human rights violator&nbsp; :blink:&nbsp; :lol:
i don&#39;t really care if you keep your sig or not.

i&#39;m only concerned that you inform yourself about the images that you iterate.

so keep on reading and researching stalin :: don&#39;take one persons word for it, find out for youself from as many sources as you can find.

your revised posts were a decent coloquial paraphrasing, but were far from thorough or strictly historical.

you do know that stalin had trotsky murdered with an ice pick in mexico. don&#39;t you?

my gripe is that you shouldn&#39;t spruke for agendas that you do not comprehend

castro like many heads of state has probably infringed on the ideals of human rights
for a cat in a giant joseph stalin shaped house you sure like chucking rocks around

[echidna]

Originally posted by noname12@1 November 2003 - 16:49
Finish posting Already, I need to leave <_<

Meh, I must go, I will ready your Insults later :)
go then

don&#39;t let me hold you up

think of them as constructive criticism as i&#39;m not concerned with insulting you,
unless that is what will motivate you to gain better understanding of the history you&#39;re playing with.

[Rat Faced]

All I can say is dont like it, I dont care, I will keep it just because you want me to change it. If some one finds it offensive they can block it off if they wish.

If I like Stalin or Castro or Who ever the hell else, your not going to change it and no ammount of big words and pathetic insults is going to change it.

Now should I add hitlers picture to the bottom just to annoy you?


Noname12

Well actually, no you wont.

We have already had an argument with someone regarding Hitler and Nazi&#39;sm in his sig....and he used your use of Stalin as a defence.

ie If you used Stalin, why cant he use Hitler.


We replied to him, that Nazism is instantly recognisable, while someone would have to know something about politics to recognise Stalin, and the history of the Soviet Union.

As such we have to wait for someone to complain with regard to Stalin...we didnt have to wait for someone to complain about Hitler.

So...if you sig disappears at some point...you&#39;ll know that someone has complained ;)

[Will_518]

Why would someone complain about his sig? Who find Stalin offensive in the 21st century? surely he&#39;s a thing of the past. Hitler is still relevant, &#39;cos he kinda symbolises racism, but what does stalin symbolise now?

Anyway, i don&#39;t see the point of arguing about his sig, if he&#39;s as ignorant as you guys seem to think he is, then surely he is just like one of the guys we seen shouting for the national front, or BNP; just another bigot. Is it worth arguing with such a bigot? of course if you got nothing better to do, it&#39;s a free country.

As for Marxism, communism stuff, i must first say i didn&#39;t study "capital", "communist manefestal", or "history of communism", or any of the theory books by Lenin, trosky, Stalin, Mao, or Deng.
But, I don&#39;t really think communism would work in the real world, &#39;cos, surely the whole point of living is to get one over your fellow men, to beat the rest. That&#39;s why we have celebs, why we admire (or hate) successful people like Bill Gates; and why we want to be doctors, engineers...

What would be the goal of the individual in a communist world? what would one strive for?

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 November 2003 - 20:42
So...if you sig disappears at some point...you&#39;ll know that someone has complained ;)
Is this not a little out of order? His sig is either allowed, or it isn&#39;t. Surely a complaint is only equal to a member&#39;s desire to use it. What if someone were to put a Leeds United logo in their sig, and a Manchester United supporter were to be offended, would it be taken down? I find Christianity to be offensive, and it has possibly been responsible for more innocent deaths than any dictator. In fact, the refusal of the catholic church to allow birth control, abortion, or even sex education, is still killing people to this day. Should you not ban religious iconography? If no-name wishes to use images of Stalin, he should be allowed to, or no-one should use anything offensive.


:)

[MediaSlayer]

Originally posted by blackhatknight@1 November 2003 - 01:10
I&#39;m not sure i argee with this but i once heard it argued the earliest form of cummunisim was found in the Bible after the day of pentecost where the early followers sold their possession and life in something a long the lines of a hippy communion
google for "essenes"

[blackhatknight]

Mediaslayer excellent comment.

Let me develop my point a little further this was, to my knowledge, the first communist community and indeed others may disagree, but with a word only meaning what two people agree it to be by communism I mean a profound social, political and economic move towards equality

This incident of the community is documented in chapter 4 of ACTS chapter five begins by discussing the incident between Ananias and Sapphira how sold property but held back some money for themselves, when it was in the nature of community to share all worldly possessions (those familiar with the story will know there is much speculation over these events and it is not my intention to discuss them) but rather highlight the point that communism, anarchy and other extreme left wing political structures all suffer from one fundamental flaw, they relay on the good nature of man kind which I believe is innately absent from him.

Consequently I align myself with soft left wing and more right wing political structures, and I do this reluctantly for the romantic in me does not want to give up all hope in his fellow man.

It is also worth noting that many people have recieved explainations of what right wing and left wing are by means of a horizontal line with left wing at one end and right at the other i would argue this is also a misrepresentation of the systems, when i explain it i draw a circle allowing extreme right wingers and left wingers to meet on the same ground which i would describe as dictatorship which has result out of both left and ring wing system, and as pointed out already stalin stands as an excellent example of this

EDIT: spelling and last paragraph added

[Will_518]

You draw a circle? But there is quite a difference between extreme left wing and extreme right wing. They hate each other, and the left have a dictatorship which is in theory not supposed to last (dictatorship is justa process toward total communism); while the right wing have a dictatorship that&#39;s supposed to last a thousand years.

Of course, i think this right wing, left wing stuff is absurd for the 21st century. What about the good religious ppl who love their fellow men? (by this i don&#39;t mean they are gay). Neither the left nor right tolerants all religions.

[noname12]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@1 November 2003 - 11:42

All I can say is dont like it, I dont care, I will keep it just because you want me to change it. If some one finds it offensive they can block it off if they wish.

If I like Stalin or Castro or Who ever the hell else, your not going to change it and no ammount of big words and pathetic insults is going to change it.

Now should I add hitlers picture to the bottom just to annoy you?


Noname12

Well actually, no you wont.

We have already had an argument with someone regarding Hitler and Nazi&#39;sm in his sig....and he used your use of Stalin as a defence.

ie If you used Stalin, why cant he use Hitler.


We replied to him, that Nazism is instantly recognisable, while someone would have to know something about politics to recognise Stalin, and the history of the Soviet Union.

As such we have to wait for someone to complain with regard to Stalin...we didnt have to wait for someone to complain about Hitler.

So...if you sig disappears at some point...you&#39;ll know that someone has complained ;)
w00t its not been removed :lol:

All I can say is to you that complaints, I have found many sigs to be beyond any of my tastes but I dont care its called freedom to opinions and that freedom includes there right to blast it.

If some one was to put hitlers picture up, I wouldnt complain, I dont care, if some one likes hitler there problem not mine.

As for the rest of every thing, I feel I have answered what was needed with help of a friend, although I do admit in the beginning I did not understand communism as I truly thought but I still feel I have managed to argue my point without sinking to insults, I only did that when they questioned my beautiful avatar and sig, which if does cause so much offence I may just put Ariel sharons picture instead. :)

Now let this go back to the original arguement or let it be closed, I do wish to learn more about this marxism because until recently I had no idea what it was and would like to argue it further.

I have put across my views of the similarities between Communism and Socialism and I have argued how I believe Socialism is the product of Jewish and Islamic political systems.

Those who wish to argue this point please do. If you wish to argue my sig and avatar choice I will more then gladly accept PM&#39;s from you and if the case is well put with out childish insults I will remove it to something more tasteful but for now I believe it shall remain.

Thank you.

And thanks Billy Dean :)

[hobbes]

my gripe is that you shouldn&#39;t spruke for agendas that you do not comprehend




Originally posted by echidna@1 November 2003 - 08:01
castro like many heads of state has probably infringed on the ideals of human rights
for a cat in a giant joseph stalin shaped house you sure like chucking rocks around
Ok, what sort of proverb amalgam is this? Surely I am missing some reference or inside joke here. (This has the potential to be my new signature, unless, of course, the mods receive too many complaints.)

I will take the liberty of adding a ".", after "human rights", but I&#39;m still left a little baffled by that final line.

Will be back to check on this later, I&#39;m going outside to inspect the shape of MY house.



"spruke" was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner&#39;s Dictionary
Keep on sprukin&#39;--Well, I cannot find the word in any dictionary, but it appears that our man on the street down-under has heard it. It appears to be equivalent to "hawking"-to offer for sale by calling out in the street.

Must have been an English word that visited Australia and liked it so much it never came back.

[Biggles]

I shall watch with interest also.

I confess I was curious as to the exact nature of the verb "spruke" but I didn&#39;t like to ask.

:unsure:

I do feel that interesting though Noname&#39;s signature is, it has distracted somewhat from the the question Skweeky originally posed.

A discussion regarding the nature and aims of Socialism, Communism and Marxism (and perhaps in the UK&#39;s case, Fabianism), may be more to the point.

Incidently, I think Nonames&#39;s avatar signature is good. Although bleak, Stalin&#39;s observation is correct and we should always bear it in mind least we forget. The other signature reveals more about Stalin than any actual observation of the human condition and consequently is less valuable in my opinion. Rather than T52s Noname, you should check out some of the Stalinist era propaganda art. They raised the poster depicting harvest time and ship building to an absolute art form - much more evocative of the period.

[blackhatknight]

Originally posted by Will_518@1 November 2003 - 17:16
You draw a circle? But there is quite a difference between extreme left wing and extreme right wing.
This is your opinion and a good one at that please note my opinion is that there is no difference one can be so far right wing (capitalist and democractic to the point there is one is argueable, or lack for a better work soviegin leader) or so far left wing they end in dictatorship (the poeple&#39;s choice is so emboided by one set of pople and eventually one person), which is the same end result (in my opinion)

[noname12]

Originally posted by Biggles@1 November 2003 - 22:38
I shall watch with interest also.

I confess I was curious as to the exact nature of the verb "spruke" but I didn&#39;t like to ask.

:unsure:&nbsp;

I do feel that interesting though Noname&#39;s signature is, it has distracted somewhat from the the question Skweeky originally posed.

A discussion regarding the nature and aims of Socialism, Communism and Marxism (and perhaps in the UK&#39;s case, Fabianism), may be more to the point.

Incidently, I think Nonames&#39;s avatar signature is good. Although bleak, Stalin&#39;s observation is correct and we should always bear it in mind least we forget. The other signature reveals more about Stalin than any actual observation of the human condition and consequently is less valuable in my opinion. Rather than T52s Noname, you should check out some of the Stalinist era propaganda art. They raised the poster depicting harvest time and ship building to an absolute art form - much more evocative of the period.
I must answer though I tried to resist, thank you biggles for taking a lighter tone with me :lol:

For those who do know me, they would understand my intentions of both the avatar and sig and bouth quotes underneath them. Every one has there oen intentions but also I might add that those who do know me would know that it is not made for contreversy nor harm nor attention but a little smart ass&#39;ness.

But I might add some Soviet posters instead of tanks.

Thank you.

[MediaSlayer]

Originally posted by hobbes@1 November 2003 - 21:05

my gripe is that you shouldn&#39;t spruke for agendas that you do not comprehend



Keep on sprukin&#39;
@blackhatknight-f.y.i. if you look back to my very first post in this thread, you will see i&#39;m not really participating in an intellectual discussion of communism/marxism/socialism, although some haven&#39;t noticed that yet(judging by the replies). I don&#39;t feel like arguing, so I&#39;m just posting jokes or what not.

@hobbes-1st rule of debate(according to echidna)-when in doubt, overwhelm your opponent and end your speech with a one liner that contains a word they won&#39;t recognize. :) :D :rolleyes: :) :)

[Skweeky]

the thing is....

I do know something about history, and I find a picture of Stalin quite offensive, even when it&#39;s meant ironically. I&#39;m not going to ask someone to change his sig though, everyone to their own I say ;)

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by MediaSlayer@2 November 2003 - 14:35
@hobbes-1st rule of debate(according to echidna)-when in doubt, overwhelm your opponent and end your speech with a one liner that contains a word they won&#39;t recognize.
My father was a "spruker". He worked the east end of London in the 50&#39;s.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, Del Boy (Only Fools and Horses) was a spruker.


:)

[j2k4]

Sorry to have arrived here so late, but I brought my 2 cents, so here it is:

Communism is not worth discussing, as it&#39;s success relies on some naive and misbegotten perception of the inherent "goodness" of man, i.e. "All men are consumed by altruistic thoughts". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The rise and fall of the U.S.S.R. should tell us all we need to know about that.

Socialism is a threat, as it constitutes a "half-measure", which apologists for Communism deem harmless: It is "Communism-Lite".

Socialism derives it&#39;s viability (that is to say, in the non-theoretical, real-world sense) from it&#39;s habit of attacking three basic social institutions: Religion, the Family, and private property.

Religion, because it offers a rival authority to the State.

The Family, because it means a rival loyalty to the State.

Private property, because it means material independence from the State.

Socialism, and it&#39;s big brother, Communism, brook neither rivals nor independence. ;)

[noname12]

Originally posted by j2k4@2 November 2003 - 21:00
Sorry to have arrived here so late, but I brought my 2 cents, so here it is:

Communism is not worth discussing, as it&#39;s success relies on some naive and misbegotten perception of the inherent "goodness" of man, i.e. "All men are consumed by altruistic thoughts". Nothing could be further from the truth.

The rise and fall of the U.S.S.R. should tell us all we need to know about that.

Socialism is a threat, as it constitutes a "half-measure", which apologists for Communism deem harmless: It is "Communism-Lite".

Socialism derives it&#39;s viability (that is to say, in the non-theoretical, real-world sense) from it&#39;s habit of attacking three basic social institutions: Religion, the Family, and private property.

Religion, because it offers a rival authority to the State.

The Family, because it means a rival loyalty to the State.

Private property, because it means material independence from the State.

Socialism, and it&#39;s big brother, Communism, brook neither rivals nor independence. ;)
The Fall of the USSR actually has nothing to do with Communism it self, more to do with the stalin reigiem.

The actually reason of the banning of religion came when Carl Marx first pointed out that the christian authority was failing and could no longer sustain power, He also did come to the conclusion that the world in it current state was not ready to accept a view which was full on religious or that which was different to christianity.

He did however come with an idea that would both give a certain amount of control and reliability. As I said he did indeed suggest communism but a Student of his said there was no reasonable way of implimenting it and that Socialism is the best route and easier for the people to swallow.

Communism in it self can be worked if it was done by trotski&#39;s idea,s of slowly introducing it... thats the way all radical changes and ideas have been accepted through first adding suger with the medicine then giving the real bitter stuff.

If communism was implimented fully to its origin then there is no reason to believe it wouldnt be succesful and as for it not worthy of debate as it is such a big part of our history, longer then WWII it is more then worthy of discussion, debate and study.

But the argument is not my sig nor the implimentation, let us make a new thread about those, one for morality and sigs in internet life ( :lol: ) and one for implementation of the Communism theory. For now the argument is the similarities, I move that some one makes a second version to this cutting out all my useless drivle and just add the appropriate remarks of this arguement.

Edit: Sig has been changed... I wonder who&#39;s going to complain next :rolleyes:

[Rat Faced]

Socialism derives it&#39;s viability (that is to say, in the non-theoretical, real-world sense) from it&#39;s habit of attacking three basic social institutions: Religion, the Family, and private property.




You are talking about Communism here, im sure. Not Socialism.

Socialism was 1st tried as part of a Religious belief, and the movement in general doesnt attack any Religion, whereas Communism (State Capitalism) does.

The only way that you can say the "Family" is attacked, is that the well off have to contribute more towards those that cannot manage...well, they are families too. So some upper Middle Class family cant quite manage to send their Kids to University, so that some other Kids can eat. Oh, hang on....they can, as they would also be helped by the State, unless they want to get into a "Named" University and join the "Old School Tie" Brigade. Again, Communism (State Capitalism) appears to encourage what you are saying.

Private Property? Well, my father bought his council house at a discount from a Socialist Council, under a Socialist Government. That appears to be encouraging private property, not discouraging it. Of course under Communism (State Capitalism) the State owns all property...

(Before all the UK lot start saying "Right to Buy" was brought in by Thatcher... This was pre Thatcher, under a Labour Government..... "Right to Buy" was brought in to regulate what was already happening all over the country. It was the Tory councils, in general, that werent allowing people to buy their council houses prior to the RTB regulations)


I think this is another "Symantics" argument.

What the USA have called Communism, isnt. Its State Capitalism. The USSR ceased being a "Socialist State" in 1929. China, i cant ever remember being "Socialist".

As has been said again and again on this thread...... no true communist/marxist state has ever existed, and although the intent was to create "Socialist" states, the Communist States didnt do this.

.....however many European States have been, and still are "Socialist".

They have things like universal free Health Care, Education, and better unemployment benefits and retirement benefits than the USA, and most pay less overall taxation to achieve this.

What was your argument again?



The Fall of the USSR actually has nothing to do with Communism it self, more to do with the stalin reigiem.

Erm....this is so obviously crap, that there is no need to comment.

Considering how long ago the Stalin regime was, when the USSR "Fell" 90% of the population werent even alive when he was around...

[noname12]

Erm....this is so obviously crap, that there is no need to comment.

Considering how long ago the Stalin regime was, when the USSR "Fell" 90% of the population werent even alive when he was around...



Corruption always comes from a single point, once that point is crossed and not fixed it will continue.
Corruption filled the ranks, turn it inside out and tossed it back out into another Ruling class / Worker class.

I personally Believe where the wishes of Lenin held it would not have been so bad and if Trotski was kept things would be alot better.

Look at Mother Russia now, it is just as bad if not worse then it was in the beginning, that cannot all be blamed on the cold war, the corruption in russia is still as harsh as ever poverty is still the major problem of the country and crime... HA&#33; crime is done by the law enforcement officers them selves.

You can get alot of problems from looking at stalin.

I will need to consult my friend on this one too, not for the stalin comment, but on the state of before and after.

[Rat Faced]

I suggest you look up the meaning of "State Capitalism" too....then decide for yourself whether USSR was communist or State Capitalist.

[noname12]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 November 2003 - 01:37
I suggest you look up the meaning of "State Capitalism" too....then decide for yourself whether USSR was communist or State Capitalist.
I never argued the USSR was communist, I did say that it was corrupted, changed, ideals forgotten.

I have mensioned on numerous occasions that I believe that where they to have implimented Communism to its true form and by following the Suggestions of the wise rather then the psycotic, it would have worked.... for some time at least.

Stalin turned Russia back towards the tzar times but claimed it under the banner of communism.

Almost like how america gets its support from the public, declare war and place that war under the banner of Patriotism.

:)

[noname12]

Was Stalin a disaster for Russia?

•&nbsp; the country did become a major industrial nation by 1939 and her progress was unmatched in the era of the Depression in America and western Europe where millions were unemployed.

•&nbsp; those workers who did not offend the state were better off than under the&nbsp; reign of the tsar.

•&nbsp; Russia’s military forces were benefiting from her industrial growth.

•&nbsp; there was a stable government under Stalin.

•&nbsp; people had access to much better medical care some 10 years before the National Health Service was introduced in GB.

BUT:

• millions had died in famine after the failed experiment of collectivisation.

• Russia’s agriculture was at the same level in 1939 as in 1928 with a 40 million increased population.

• Russia had become a ‘telling’ society. The secret police actively encouraged people to inform on neighbours, work mates etc. and many suffered simply as a result of jealous neighbours/workers.

Also many of Russia&#39;s most talented people had been murdered during the Purges of the 1930&#39;s. Anyone with talent was seen as a threat by the increasingly paranoid behaviour associated with Stalin and were killed or imprisoned (which usually lead to death anyway). The vast Soviet army was a body without a brain as most of her senior officers had been arrested and murdered during the Purges.


Interesting...

[noname12]

Reading about Lenin doesn&#39;t do much.... :blink:


Russia by 1918 appeared to be in the hands of the communists (the Bolshevik Party) lead by Lenin. The Provisional Government had been overthrown and the Bolsheviks had appeared to have gained power in Russia and that the country’s problems seemed to be over. In fact, those problems had only just begun.

Lenin controlled just a strip of land that ran form Petrograd to Moscow. He did not control any other area in this vast country. There were also many people who hated the thought of communists having control over them. There were also many who wanted the tsar back in power. All the groups that opposed Lenin were called the Whites. A civil war broke out in Russia with the Whites fighting to get rid of the Reds - the Communists. Russia was also still in World War One.

Lenin’s problems =

limited control of Russian territory
many groups against his rule
still in World War One
By 1921, Lenin had come through all of these problems and was the head of a communist government in Russia. How did this come about ?

1. He pulled Russia out of the war with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed in March 1918. This was a cruel treaty which the Russians had to sign. Trotsky was given the task of negotiating with the Germans. Russia was to loose a great deal of land which included 60 million people to the Germans. The land also included 25% of her farming land and 75% of her iron ore and coal deposits. But the treaty got Russia out of the war and allowed Lenin the time to concentrate on home issues. (Note : remember this treaty when looking at Versailles and how harsh Versailles appeared to be. Many thought that if the Germans were willing to hand it out, they should be willing to take similar punishment.)

2. The forces that were against Lenin in the civil war were never a united group. Each had its own reason for fighting the communists and the groups that fought the Reds never united into one large army. As such, the Red Army lead by Trotsky, could pick them off one by one. Also the communists held the 2 most important cities in Russia (Moscow and Petrograd) with all the main communication centres in them including rail lines etc. Trotsky also used ex-tsarist officers who had experience in leading men and fighting battles. Their skill was to prove invaluable and there were 50,000 of them. Trotsky was also a brilliant leader who instilled into his men a belief in what they were fighting for. Discipline was harsh. If a unit performed badly in battle, its leader was shot and the men sent to prison. The Reds also treated the people very well - they were ordered to do this - while the Whites frequently abused those who lived in areas that they were in. The Reds were usually seen as liberators when they advanced to an area where the Whites had been. The peasants were also promised land by the Reds while the Whites promised to restore land back to its original owner.

Using these tactics of picking off one White army and winning the support of the people, the Reds claimed victory in 1921. With the Whites out of Russia or dead, Lenin now had Russia under his control

[noname12]

Lenin knew that he had to change the economy if he was to survive. In 1921, War Communism was scrapped and the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced. The NEP had 4 main features :

The taking of grain by the Cheka was stopped. The peasant farmers would have to give to the government a set amount of grain each year in tax but if they produced any extra they could sell it in the open market and make money.
Traders could buy and sell. This had been illegal under War Communism.
Small factories producing things which the people could buy but were not essential to life, were returned to their original owner. They could sell goods and make a profit.
Larger factories producing essential items remained under the control of the government.


There we have it.... the defining moment... Trotsky was right after all, Socialism first then communism and Lenin learnt the hard way.

[noname12]

Any problems were dealt with by the Cheka - the feared communist secret police. They had used what was known as the Red Terror during the civil war to keep people in order. To survive during the civil war, Lenin introduced War Communism.

Secret Police, the killer of any country.



In the factories, the government took complete control. The workers who had been given to right to run factories, had that right taken away. Managers ran them and discipline was strict. Food was rationed. Workers and soldiers received the most while civil servants received little. The workers had to do what the government said they had to - just as in the days of the tsar &#33;&#33;

In the countryside, the Cheka was sent out to take food from the peasant farmers. Anybody found keeping food from others was shot. The peasants responded by producing food only for themselves and so the cities were more short of food than before. Life under Lenin appeared to be worse than under Nicholas II &#33;&#33;

The civil war had devastated Russia’s economy. People survived by doing whatever they could - there was a great increase in robberies and law and order was on the verge of breaking down. Agriculture had been ruined by the war and in 1921, after a drought, there was a terrible famine. Five million people died as a result of this. Cannibalism was common amongst those who survived. Every part of industry was at a worse level than it had been in 1913 :



1913 1921
Grain
80 mill tons
37.6 mill tons

Coal
29 mill tons
9 mill tons

Oil
9.2 mill tons
3.8 mill tons

Iron
4.2 mill tons
0.1 mill tons

Steel
4.3 mill tons
0.2 mill tons

Sugar
1.3 mill tons
0.05 mill tons

Electricity
2039 mill kW
520 mill kW




By 1921, opposition to Lenin had grown. The country was in a disastrous stare when compared to the state it had been in under the tsar. Workers formed themselves into Workers’ Opposition demanding a) higher wages b-) more food and c) the return of workers control of industry. These were the same workers who had supported Lenin in 1917 &#33;&#33;



Again this seems to show me that if he followed trotsky&#39;s way of socialism first then communism it would have worked. Civil war, WWI and Opposition seemed to be the enemy not lenin...

Very interesting reading this is.

Sratch that last comment <_<

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 November 2003 - 21:27
I think this is another "Symantics" argument.


:lol:

Yes, I believe you&#39;re right, Rat. ;)

I also feel your reductive treatment of Socialism to be more-or-less correct; also:

I would say Socialism (as you have seen it practiced in the U.K.) doesn&#39;t jibe with my understanding of what it actually is; the U.S.S.R. was, after all, a Socialist regime, and represented/reflected Stalin&#39;s consolidation of the various strains of Marxism-Leninism, et.al.

"Communism" ended up as a semi-correct short-hand reference for what we saw in the U.S.S.R.-I think the Manifesto and much of the latent sentiment for the origins of the movement are responsible for this.

As re: the U.S.S.R., then, I will defer to your more reasoned conclusion. B)

[Billy_Dean]

I&#39;d like to make two points here;

Communism, (or whatever name you give it) may have worked for a time, if properly implemented. However, in this day and age, it would break down, as it is (slowly) in China. Global communications, TV, the internet et al, leads to a freedom of speech the government cannot control. It also shows the everyone-is-equal world what can be gained from individual effort and reward. Capitalism not only rewards the hard working, but also the greedy and the corrupt, making it irresistable to people with ambition.

The second point I want to make is socialism, as implemented in Australia. Although we have two sides to our politics here, Liberal and Labour, they are not "right" and "left" as in Thatcher and Wilson, but are both centrist, and often overlap. We have universal free health care in Australia, and free education. We were the first to have trades unions, and the first to give woman the vote. So, whilst not being left wing socialist, we are, indeed, a "socialist" country, and one of, if not the, best countries in the world to live.


:)

[echidna]

I had no idea that the term spruik was so arcane,
I hadn&#39;t intended it to confuse or confound, so here for the record is how the macquarie dictionary (http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/) defines spruik
______________________________________
Spruik /spruk/ [i]verb (i) Colloquial 1. to harangue or address a meeting: *This time, the candidates will be forced to return to basics - door-knocking, baby-kissing, glad-handing during street-walks, visits to shopping malls and pubs, perhaps street-corner spruiking - WEST AUSTRALIAN, 1992. 2. to harangue prospective customers to entice them into a show, strip joint, shop, etc.: *ln Chinatown they are now subtly spruiking for custom. -HERALD, 1990. [origin uncert.; ? from D spreken speak] -spruiker, [i]n.
______________________________________

nice research though hobbes, also, i realise i forgot to mention that noname12s joseph shaped house was made of glass and the rocks were accusations of human rights abuses

all very sloppy of me

i didn&#39;t specifically have issue with the image of stalin, rather i was concerned that noname12 be fully aware of the connotations that his sig carried, because nn12 seemed unaware.

now nn12 is assembling the first edition of the Klite-board-soviet-history-crib-notes, and has a great new sig.

i also tend to agree that the USSR would have likely had a very different character if trotsky had succeeded lenin rather than stalin.
they were very different men
but the attitudes of the uk, usa and other capitolist states would still have been difficult to deal with

the poster art under stalin was tremendous, it and the figurative sculpture from the period is fantastic although somewhat kitch in hindsight