Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An-com the only legit form of communism?

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 1:30:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This thread is for discussing what IS communism? What is an accurate sub group and what is merely an impostor that shouldn't be considered actual communism?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:01:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What makes something communist? That's the real question here.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:07:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:01:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What makes something communist? That's the real question here.

Obama. Duh.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:13:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:07:21 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:01:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What makes something communist? That's the real question here.

Obama. Duh.

even I don't think that
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:15:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:30:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This thread is for discussing what IS communism?

Baby don't profit.
Baby don't profit.
No more.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:16:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:32:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, fine.

An-Com is obviously the only valid type since Marx says that the state will wither away in the Manifesto.

Thinking the state will naturally wither away after many years of an absolute, statist, dictatorship of the proletariat-- this is a very very different thing from saying "No states allowed. Anarchy now. Communism will result."

The ideologies have completely different orders of events, and prescribe completely different actions.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:21:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:07:21 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:01:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What makes something communist? That's the real question here.

Obama. Duh.

I was going to say "inbefore Obama", but you beat me to it lol xD
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:39:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:16:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:32:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, fine.

An-Com is obviously the only valid type since Marx says that the state will wither away in the Manifesto.

Thinking the state will naturally wither away after many years of an absolute, statist, dictatorship of the proletariat-- this is a very very different thing from saying "No states allowed. Anarchy now. Communism will result."

The ideologies have completely different orders of events, and prescribe completely different actions.

"Dictatorship" in Marx's time did not mean "authoritarian" government. It literally meant "rule of". In essence, socialism is representative democracy with the workers as the major political force.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:43:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:39:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:16:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:32:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, fine.

An-Com is obviously the only valid type since Marx says that the state will wither away in the Manifesto.

Thinking the state will naturally wither away after many years of an absolute, statist, dictatorship of the proletariat-- this is a very very different thing from saying "No states allowed. Anarchy now. Communism will result."

The ideologies have completely different orders of events, and prescribe completely different actions.

"Dictatorship" in Marx's time did not mean "authoritarian" government. It literally meant "rule of".
Rule is governance. Rule entails authority.

In essence, socialism is representative democracy with the workers as the major political force.
Democracy, representation, and a "major political force" all contradict anarchy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:44:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And dictatorship, by the way, has meant rule by a single person since the Roman republic.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:46:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:44:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And dictatorship, by the way, has meant rule by a single person since the Roman republic.

I hate when people twist concepts just to make it easier to attack them. This is a strawman logical fallacy.

In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power. The term, coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, was adopted by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the 19th century. The use of the term "dictatorship" does not refer to the Classical Roman concept of the dictatura (the governance of a state by a small group with no democratic process), but instead to the Marxist concept of dictatorship (that an entire societal class holds political and economic control, within a democratic system).[1]
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:47:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:43:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:39:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:16:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:32:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, fine.

An-Com is obviously the only valid type since Marx says that the state will wither away in the Manifesto.

Thinking the state will naturally wither away after many years of an absolute, statist, dictatorship of the proletariat-- this is a very very different thing from saying "No states allowed. Anarchy now. Communism will result."

The ideologies have completely different orders of events, and prescribe completely different actions.

"Dictatorship" in Marx's time did not mean "authoritarian" government. It literally meant "rule of".
Rule is governance. Rule entails authority.

Sure, but it does not entail absolute authority, which is what you are making it out to be.
In essence, socialism is representative democracy with the workers as the major political force.
Democracy, representation, and a "major political force" all contradict anarchy.

Socialism is not equivalent to communism.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:48:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:30:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This thread is for discussing what IS communism? What is an accurate sub group and what is merely an impostor that shouldn't be considered actual communism?:

Anyone with even a nominal level of reading comprehension can clearly see that what Marx advocated and what ended up happening to EVERY single communist state is at odds. Granted.

But we can't forget that they all got the idea from Marx and Engels, and whether their initial intentions were obscurred or not is entirely moot when the reality is that it's been tried and it's proven disastrous time again. It didn't lead to the dissolution of the State, it lead to the exact opposite -- a gigantic mega-state. Is it just a coincidence that the same results happened to multiple different States? Just a fluke that was repeated dozens of times or was it a recipe for disaster from the beginning?

Why communism failed, and will continue to fail, is because it neglects to factor in the most important component -- human nature.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 2:56:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:46:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:44:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And dictatorship, by the way, has meant rule by a single person since the Roman republic.

I hate when people twist concepts just to make it easier to attack them. This is a strawman logical fallacy.
Marx didn't invent the concept of dictatorship, he twisted the word. Hate on him.


In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power
You're backing my point here.

Sure, but it does not entail absolute authority, which is what you are making it out to be.
How so?
When libertarians talk of a government of limited powers, we tell you what the government isn't to do.

Socialism is not equivalent to communism.
Marx is equivalent to Marx. Marx advocated a socialist state as a means to his end. Call him a communist or do not call him a communist, there is no third option.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:25:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:56:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:46:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:44:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And dictatorship, by the way, has meant rule by a single person since the Roman republic.

I hate when people twist concepts just to make it easier to attack them. This is a strawman logical fallacy.
Marx didn't invent the concept of dictatorship, he twisted the word. Hate on him.

Why should I? You are using a strawman against his ideas.

In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power
You're backing my point here.

Now you are just being dishonest. Did you read the rest of the quote? This is power in the context of a fully functioning democratic society.

The fact that you had to be dishonest to make your point indicates that you known that you are incorrect.
Sure, but it does not entail absolute authority, which is what you are making it out to be.
How so?
When libertarians talk of a government of limited powers, we tell you what the government isn't to do.

Socialism is not equivalent to communism.
Marx is equivalent to Marx. Marx advocated a socialist state as a means to his end. Call him a communist or do not call him a communist, there is no third option.

Socialism=democracy with workers as the major political power. Republic = democracy with businesses and the upper class as the major political power. I fail to see why you do not understand this.

I think you are being dishonest because you have no refuations to what Communism and Socialism actually entails. What is the point of having discussions if you are going to do this? I am now less likely to become an Objectivist/right-winged nutcase now because I am repulsed by your dishonesty.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:28:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anarchic communism is the end-goal.

However, Marx predicted a sort of hybrid communist/authoritarian phase where there is centralized organization to let the proles take advantage of the over-production occurring in capitalist countries. After the world is universally communist, the authoritarian government is supposed to disband.

I think we all know how that went.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:44:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:32:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, fine.

An-Com is obviously the only valid type since Marx says that the state will wither away in the Manifesto.

*Facepalm*
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:54:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:25:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

I am now less likely to become an Objectivist/right-winged nutcase now because I am repulsed by your dishonesty.

Wow... This is disgusting. Judge the philosophy based on it's merits and not it's adherents. The level of obnoxiousness does not make a fact any less true. You parot around logic and reason and yet can't even even understand that.

And I'm not defending him just because I'm some Randian Objectivist, I'm actually a Left Libertarian.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 3:54:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, when Marx referred to the withering of the state, he was referring to the current state (a "capitalist" based state), not all forms of government. We can see from CM that it is a call for the destruction of the current system, a system which he believed was exploiting a working "class" for the total benefit for an upper "class" (well, and middle class, but for simplicity, we'll just look at two classes).

Now, moving on...

We can turn to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, DoP. Marx first wrote about this in 1850 in the Class Struggles in France [1]. And he used it frequently through this work and future works. While there is some questions on the meaning of "dictatorship" in his usage, but it is mostly believed to be the traditional sense of a temporary martial law, or transition state. But it was in no way a "stateless" or anarchic system [2].

Marx later stated, "that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

"we do not want to make the state 'free,' but rather to put it under democratic control... Freedom consists in transforming the state from an organ set above society into one thoroughly subordinated to it, and today too the state forms are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the ‘freedom of the state."

What Marx describes as the communist part (after the DoP socialism) in the CM, "In a higher phase of communist society, when the enslaving subordination of individuals in the division of labor has disappeared, and with it also the antagonism, between mental and physical labor; when labor has become not only a means of living, but itself the first necessity of life; when, along with the all-around development of individuals, the productive forces too have grown, and all the springs of social wealth are flowing more freely—it is only at that stage that it will be possible to pass completely beyond the horizon of bourgeois rights, and for society to inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability: to each according to his needs!"

You will notice that at no point does he claim that there is no government nor state. He does not describe an anarchist state.

Now, if we want to move along with Lenin (as the traditional an-com belief is Marx-Leninism), we can see that Lenin developed the post DoP beliefs a lot further. However, both make a false belief that (in the words of Lenin), "only communism renders the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one to be suppressed..."

Lenin also said, "we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses which consists in violating the rules of social life is the exploitation of the masses, their want and their poverty."

Now, other communists (including Engels and others before Lenin) did not believe that "want" would simply disappear and so rules and enforcement would still be needed. This is because communism has always been defined as an economic system where classes have been abolished. It is not defined as an abolishment of the state. It is just that some believe that once classes are gone, the state will naturally disappear, but it is not a requirement for communism.

Therefore, one can say that under how communism was viewed and defined under Marx, that there can be state based communism, so long as it is classless.

[1] http://www.marxists.org...
[2] http://marxmyths.org...

Other general links

http://www.gutenberg.org...
http://www.economictheories.org...
http://www.marxists.org...
http://www.marxists.org...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 5:03:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:54:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Ok, so "stateless communism" is referred to as "pure communism".

Stateless communism, also known as pure communism, is the post-capitalist stage of society which Karl Marx predicted would inevitably result from the development of the productive forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

First, when Marx referred to the withering of the state, he was referring to the current state (a "capitalist" based state), not all forms of government.
This is actually false. Marx was referring to the transition between socialism and communism when he used this phrase. When socialism would not longer be needed, the state would wither away.

Moreover, as seen the Manifesto, Capitalism is a prerequisite to Communism. Marx does not claim that other forms of government can transform into Communist societies. Bourgeois reign is needed first.
We can see from CM that it is a call for the destruction of the current system, a system which he believed was exploiting a working "class" for the total benefit for an upper "class" (well, and middle class, but for simplicity, we'll just look at two classes).

Now, moving on...

We can turn to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, DoP. Marx first wrote about this in 1850 in the Class Struggles in France [1]. And he used it frequently through this work and future works. While there is some questions on the meaning of "dictatorship" in his usage, but it is mostly believed to be the traditional sense of a temporary martial law, or transition state. But it was in no way a "stateless" or anarchic system [2].

I don't feel like citing the source again that I used a page earlier. Marxists concepts of dictatorship differ from the classic Roman concepts. Marx argues that "dictatorship" means "control of". Dictatorship by the proletariat means that the workers are the dominant political force in a democratic system.
Marx later stated, "that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."

"we do not want to make the state 'free,' but rather to put it under democratic control... Freedom consists in transforming the state from an organ set above society into one thoroughly subordinated to it, and today too the state forms are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the ‘freedom of the state."

That quote is not completely correct. Marx actually says that in socialism, he would subordinate the state to the people. (I.E.: Participatory democracy). I looked up that quote.
What Marx describes as the communist part (after the DoP socialism) in the CM, "In a higher phase of communist society, when the enslaving subordination of individuals in the division of labor has disappeared, and with it also the antagonism, between mental and physical labor; when labor has become not only a means of living, but itself the first necessity of life; when, along with the all-around development of individuals, the productive forces too have grown, and all the springs of social wealth are flowing more freely—it is only at that stage that it will be possible to pass completely beyond the horizon of bourgeois rights, and for society to inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability: to each according to his needs!"

You will notice that at no point does he claim that there is no government nor state. He does not describe an anarchist state.

Now, if we want to move along with Lenin (as the traditional an-com belief is Marx-Leninism), we can see that Lenin developed the post DoP beliefs a lot further. However, both make a false belief that (in the words of Lenin), "only communism renders the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one to be suppressed..."

Lenin also said, "we know that the fundamental social cause of excesses which consists in violating the rules of social life is the exploitation of the masses, their want and their poverty."

Now, other communists (including Engels and others before Lenin) did not believe that "want" would simply disappear and so rules and enforcement would still be needed. This is because communism has always been defined as an economic system where classes have been abolished. It is not defined as an abolishment of the state. It is just that some believe that once classes are gone, the state will naturally disappear, but it is not a requirement for communism.

Therefore, one can say that under how communism was viewed and defined under Marx, that there can be state based communism, so long as it is classless.

[1] http://www.marxists.org...
[2] http://marxmyths.org...

Other general links

http://www.gutenberg.org...
http://www.economictheories.org...
http://www.marxists.org...
http://www.marxists.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 6:58:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 3:25:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:56:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:46:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:44:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And dictatorship, by the way, has meant rule by a single person since the Roman republic.

I hate when people twist concepts just to make it easier to attack them. This is a strawman logical fallacy.
Marx didn't invent the concept of dictatorship, he twisted the word. Hate on him.

Why should I? You are using a strawman against his ideas.
Not so. I didn't claim he adhered to the original concept of dictatorship.


In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power
You're backing my point here.

Now you are just being dishonest. Did you read the rest of the quote? This is power in the context of a fully functioning democratic society.
Irrelevant. Democracy and anarchy are different things.

Socialism=democracy with workers as the major political power. Republic = democracy with businesses and the upper class as the major political power. I fail to see why you do not understand this.
You're strawmanning republicans. And not saying anything relevant to your point.


I think you are being dishonest because you have no refuations to what Communism and Socialism actually entails. What is the point of having discussions if you are going to do this? I am now less likely to become an Objectivist/right-winged nutcase now because I am repulsed by your dishonesty.
I haven't said a dishonest thing, you're just misinterpreting, deliberately or otherwise.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 7:43:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 6:58:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 3:25:01 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:56:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:46:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:44:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
And dictatorship, by the way, has meant rule by a single person since the Roman republic.

I hate when people twist concepts just to make it easier to attack them. This is a strawman logical fallacy.
Marx didn't invent the concept of dictatorship, he twisted the word. Hate on him.

Why should I? You are using a strawman against his ideas.
Not so. I didn't claim he adhered to the original concept of dictatorship.

Correct, but you did use the original concept of dictatorship as a means of misconstruing his ideas.

In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, has control of political power
You're backing my point here.

Now you are just being dishonest. Did you read the rest of the quote? This is power in the context of a fully functioning democratic society.
Irrelevant. Democracy and anarchy are different things.

You are misinterpreting my analysis again.

Communism is the anarchical state.

Socialism is the democratic state.

This specific sentence discussed socialism, not communism.

Socialism=democracy with workers as the major political power. Republic = democracy with businesses and the upper class as the major political power. I fail to see why you do not understand this.
You're strawmanning republicans. And not saying anything relevant to your point.

I am not strawmanning Republicans. I am using this as an example to explain Marx's concept of dictatorship.

I think you are being dishonest because you have no refuations to what Communism and Socialism actually entails. What is the point of having discussions if you are going to do this? I am now less likely to become an Objectivist/right-winged nutcase now because I am repulsed by your dishonesty.
I haven't said a dishonest thing, you're just misinterpreting, deliberately or otherwise.

LOL, this is so false.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 7:46:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 7:43:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Correct, but you did use the original concept of dictatorship as a means of misconstruing his ideas.
No, I used it to rebut your notion of "In marx's time." Regardless of what it meant in Marx's writings, in Marx's time it meant the same thing it has always meant.

You are misinterpreting my analysis again.
Then reinterpret it.


Communism is the anarchical state.

Socialism is the democratic state.

This specific sentence discussed socialism, not communism.
Get to the part where it leads to the conclusion relevant to the thread.
Note that many self-claimed socialists would disagree with you.


Socialism=democracy with workers as the major political power. Republic = democracy with businesses and the upper class as the major political power. I fail to see why you do not understand this.
You're strawmanning republicans. And not saying anything relevant to your point.

I am not strawmanning Republicans.
Small r, not big R.

I am using this as an example to explain Marx's concept of dictatorship.
That doesn't prevent you from strawmanning republicans, as Marxists have always strawmanned capitalists.

LOL, this is so false.
That's not an argument.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 7:50:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 7:46:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:43:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Correct, but you did use the original concept of dictatorship as a means of misconstruing his ideas.
No, I used it to rebut your notion of "In marx's time." Regardless of what it meant in Marx's writings, in Marx's time it meant the same thing it has always meant.

Obviously not because it means something else in Marx's writing. Ergo, it hasn't always universally meant the same thing.

Plus, my sentence was correct because it did have that meaning (even if not universally) in Marx's time.
You are misinterpreting my analysis again.
Then reinterpret it.


Communism is the anarchical state.

Socialism is the democratic state.

This specific sentence discussed socialism, not communism.
Get to the part where it leads to the conclusion relevant to the thread.

Communism is anarchical. You are arguing against socialism, not communism.
Note that many self-claimed socialists would disagree with you.

I don't care if they are "self-proclaimed". If they do not fit the standard beliefs, they are not socialists. This is like saying that someone in the middle of Africa should be granted American citizenship just because he proclaims himself an American.

Socialism=democracy with workers as the major political power. Republic = democracy with businesses and the upper class as the major political power. I fail to see why you do not understand this.
You're strawmanning republicans. And not saying anything relevant to your point.

I am not strawmanning Republicans.
Small r, not big R.

I am using this as an example to explain Marx's concept of dictatorship.
That doesn't prevent you from strawmanning republicans, as Marxists have always strawmanned capitalists.

How has Marxism strawmanned Capitalism?

LOL, this is so false.
That's not an argument.

It was not supposed to be one.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 8:52:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 1:30:32 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
This thread is for discussing what IS communism? What is an accurate sub group and what is merely an impostor that shouldn't be considered actual communism?

According to the Manifesto for the Communist Party "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Marx recognized that other forms of socialism predates Marxism. He referred to these other forms of socialism as " other working-class parties".

Marx said the only difference between Marxism and Socialism, is that Marxism wishes to abolish all private property, whereas socialism wishes to abolish, or redistribute, only some forms of private property.

Marx also proposed communal women, which he claims already exists hypocritically due to prostitution, and adultery.

Marx said that workers of every nation will establish a communist state, and only after every nation on earth has their own communist state will the state wither away, from lack of necessity.

Marx said that every communist country will have a different policies regarding the implementation of communism (all of which abolishes private property).

He theorized that the largest and more powerful communist countries will have the following policies;

"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. "

So in a way Communism does favor anarchy, but only after the entire world becomes communist.
Anarcho-communists believe that there should be no communist states at any stage, and thus Anarcho-communists are heretical in their beliefs.

There is a reason the Manifesto was titled "the Manifesto for the communist party"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:01:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 2:39:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:16:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:32:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, fine.

An-Com is obviously the only valid type since Marx says that the state will wither away in the Manifesto.

Thinking the state will naturally wither away after many years of an absolute, statist, dictatorship of the proletariat-- this is a very very different thing from saying "No states allowed. Anarchy now. Communism will result."

The ideologies have completely different orders of events, and prescribe completely different actions.

"Dictatorship" in Marx's time did not mean "authoritarian" government. It literally meant "rule of". In essence, socialism is representative democracy with the workers as the major political force.

actually it meant a a type of government where absolute sovereignty is allotted to an individual or a specific clique.

A dictatorship of the proles would be a government dictated by the working class. This of course is only possible through Party leaders, or union leaders. The "bourgeoisie" or "Middle class" would have no say in the government, and would likely be kept in submission so that they cannot launch a counter revolution. Remember once the worker class seizes power they do away with classes, so they have to prevent the middle class from launching a counter revolution, before the rest of the world becomes communist. This can only be done through oppressive means.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:03:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 7:50:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:46:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 7:43:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Correct, but you did use the original concept of dictatorship as a means of misconstruing his ideas.
No, I used it to rebut your notion of "In marx's time." Regardless of what it meant in Marx's writings, in Marx's time it meant the same thing it has always meant.

Obviously not because it means something else in Marx's writing. Ergo, it hasn't always universally meant the same thing.
Because Marx made up something new and decided to slap an existing word on it.

Communism is anarchical.
Not if Marx is a communist.
It's fine if Marx isn't a communist by your lights, royalpaladin. Simply stop marching under his banner and there won't be a problem with that.

Note that many self-claimed socialists would disagree with you.

I don't care if they are "self-proclaimed". If they do not fit the standard beliefs, they are not socialists.
Standard?
You're contradicting yourself by the way, as by your standard, if Marx's idea didn't fit the standard definition of dictatorship, it's not a dictatorship.

How has Marxism strawmanned Capitalism?
By purporting to define it, in a manner not consistent with the beliefs of capitalists. It is the role of capitalists to define capitalism, socialists to define socialism (if you are not a socialist, Royalpaladin, you ought not define socialism), communists to define communism, etc.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2012 9:21:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/7/2012 9:01:32 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:39:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/7/2012 2:16:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/7/2012 1:32:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, fine.

An-Com is obviously the only valid type since Marx says that the state will wither away in the Manifesto.

Thinking the state will naturally wither away after many years of an absolute, statist, dictatorship of the proletariat-- this is a very very different thing from saying "No states allowed. Anarchy now. Communism will result."

The ideologies have completely different orders of events, and prescribe completely different actions.

"Dictatorship" in Marx's time did not mean "authoritarian" government. It literally meant "rule of". In essence, socialism is representative democracy with the workers as the major political force.

actually it meant a a type of government where absolute sovereignty is allotted to an individual or a specific clique.

A dictatorship of the proles would be a government dictated by the working class. This of course is only possible through Party leaders, or union leaders. The "bourgeoisie" or "Middle class" would have no say in the government, and would likely be kept in submission so that they cannot launch a counter revolution. Remember once the worker class seizes power they do away with classes, so they have to prevent the middle class from launching a counter revolution, before the rest of the world becomes communist. This can only be done through oppressive means.

I already posted a quote that showed that the Marxist definition of dictatorship differs from the standard definition. Please stop strawmanning.