Political Change

[baddo 0]

Spokesperson is telling us how we think and why do we do so.

Just recently I faced a similar situation here on this very same forum. Thoughts were put into my mind by a mysterious person and then I was told by that person that this is what you think. Even when I argued against it multiple times (which I have since regretted as it was a total waste of time).

I arrived at a conclusion that it is totally worthless to argue with these kinds of people. They are telling you what you think and then go on and rant about it as long as you care to reply to them.

[-Snafu- 78]

You are right Baddo. But it makes for a good laugh on a slow evening.

[Sennacherib 0]

just to add something :

communism was a crappy system also bad as nazism, i'm really happy that now this shit is dead.

[Spokesperson 0]

Why do you think that you think "communism" was crappy?

Don't you agree that people shouldn't talk about things they don't know anything about.

Communism has never existed. In some distant future it will according to some economic theories. File sharing is such a phenomenon of the economy in a communist society.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why do you think that you think "communism" was crappy?

millions dead!!!! is it a good reason?

Quote[/b] ]Communism has never existed

do you prefer marxism-leninism well, Whatever name you give to it, this will remain a shame for humanity

[Spokesperson 0]

No that was not the question.

Communism has never existed. How can people die because of it?

And you see, the amount of killed by non-marxist based ideologies and systems are many more. And then we have religion (which also is a part of those other systems).

People starved before the USSR was industrialised and people starved in millions in the rest of the unindustrialised world too. People still starve in millions due to the world trade and order.

When you talk about communism you should be talking about socialism (at a max).

People don't starve in socialist Cuba and haven't since the revolution, but people starve in the US and in Haiti. And that's not because of "communism".

[Sennacherib 0]

blablablabla. you are blind. no offense, but this is just the truth.

[thomas c 0]

blabla or what ever it is,is not really a very stronge argument as far as i can tell,try a little harder,your not convincing me.

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]Communism has never existed. How can people die because of it?

A matter of point of view.

But as "communism" is used by a large majority of "legitimate sources" to clearly qualify a 'specific' political system, therefore the word 'communism' is kind of valid to be used in the ongoing context.

Consequently, communism existed and still exists.

Regards,

TB

[thomas c 0]

Its a usefull label,thats all your saying, As is the word Democracy,again, no real argument.

[Thunderbird 0]

Its a usefull label,thats all your saying, As is the word Democracy,again, no real argument.

There is no need to provide any kind of thesis for such a little statement, as the aim was not to spread the history of communism since there are a huge amount of different descriptions related to the theme in question.

But as communism was used to specify the concerned political system, therefore it has existed and still exists.

regards,

TB

[Spokesperson 0]

No it's not a matter of point of view, it's a matter of definitions. My dictionary says that communism is the class- and stateless society. Nothing else. You and all ignorant liberals invent new meanings to words.

You're talking about different types of socialist states (in most cases). Not communist states. USSR was a union of _socialist_ republics. Cuba is a socialist republic. There can't even be any communist countries per definition.

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]No it's not a matter of point of view, it's a matter of definitions. My dictionary says that communism is the class- and stateless society. Nothing else. You and all ignorant liberals invent new meanings to words.

The lack of details regarding the term "communism" makes me feel the need to advice you to throw your dictionnary to the sea, as "communism" from a lexical-meaning viewpoint can't just be limited to "class-less and stateless society".

Quote[/b] ]You're talking about different types of socialist states (in most cases). Not communist states. USSR was a union of _socialist_ republics. Cuba is a socialist republic. There can't even be any communist countries per definition.

A matter of label, as communism is the major branch of socialism, according to Marx, under communism, the government disappears to install an economic cooperation, the principle of distribution becomes an equation : From each according his/her ability to each according to his/her need.

Isn't that what has been instaured by USSR and Cuba? - then communism existed and still exists.

Regards,

TB

[stevevcb 3]

There's a difference between being something and calling yourself something. I could call myself a six foot six, ruggedly handsome astrophysicist, but it wouldn't necessarily be true. Calling the Soviet Union communist is pretty much the same thing.

Personally, I think this thread isn't going to go anywhere meaningful until people stop assuming that their side is always right and that the other side is always wrong. Just because you feel very strongly about something doesn't mean your arguments are valid. At the moment, it's sort of like a pantomime: "Cuba is a utopian paradise with milk and honey for all!"

"OH NO, IT'S NOT!"

"OH YES IT IS!" etc. etc. ad nauseum

That's probably far too British an analogy. Never mind.

[vektorboson 8]

There's a difference between being something and calling yourself something. I could call myself a six foot six, ruggedly handsome astrophysicist, but it wouldn't necessarily be true. Calling the Soviet Union communist is pretty much the same thing.

That's exactly the problem here.

As a friend of mine always said: "If there is 'Cola' written on the bottle, then there is cola in the bottle."

But most of the time it was Wodka/Red Bull

There was no communism in the world, but there were/are communist parties, and they totally differ in their opinions how to reach 'Communism'. Just look at the Soviet-Sino-split.

An university professor told us that there are about as many interpretations of Marx as there are Marxists.

But: Marx' methods to analyze a society are still usable, though his political ideas are 'outdated'.

And I have to defend Spokesperson, as he's right that it's about definitions.

If you can't accept that people define words different to you, you'll have problems reading texts of Philosophs like for example Hegel.

But hey, this is a Game forum, what do you expect?

[Thunderbird 0]

Quote[/b] ]There was no communism in the world, but there were/are communist parties,

Please correct me if I'm wrong but if there are "communist parties", doesn't it logically mean that "communism" does consequently exist?

It's not necessary related to a concept of large-scale communism, though.

regards,

TB

[-Snafu- 78]

Good point Thunderbird.

Would Spokesperson feel better if we said that it was leftist regimes that killed millions of people?

[.kju 3245]

Quote[/b] ]Please correct me if I'm wrong but if there are "communist parties", doesn't it logically mean that "communism" does consequently exist?

These parties may not have been in power.

Or they changed once they were.

[vektorboson 8]

Quote[/b] ]There was no communism in the world, but there were/are communist parties,

Please correct me if I'm wrong but if there are "communist parties", doesn't it logically mean that "communism" does consequently exist?

No; communist parties want to 'reach' communism, which does not mean that they established communism, even if they were in power.

Take for example Germany's Green party, which called itself pacifist: The Greens have lead the first war with Germany involved since WW2.

Now, that's pacifism, isn't it?

In most cases they thought that they can reach 'communism' by first establishing a 'socialist' society. Which you see in the name of the Soviet Union, which called itself socialist, not communist.

In the German Democratic Republic (which was not democratic, although it called itself, right?) they called the system 'real existing socialism', no trace of communism.

In the GDR, the party didn't even call itself a communist party, but socialist.

[Spokesperson 0]

Words are extremely important like vektorboson says. One can't have meaningful discussions when you speak different languages. Unfortunately, but naturally, a lot of people think of communism as something the enemies of communism define it. Things are not like you think they are.

Quote[/b] ]A matter of label, as communism is the major branch of socialism, according to Marx, under communism, the government disappears to install an economic cooperation, the principle of distribution becomes an equation : From each according his/her ability to each according to his/her need.

Isn't that what has been instaured by USSR and Cuba? - then communism existed and still exists.

That is not entirely correct. Precision is extremely important, especially in sciences that utilize words. One word can be fatal. Cuba is a proletarian dictatorship (which is a rule of the majority), where the working class rules. The western world consists mainly of bourgeois dictatorships, where the class that owns rules over the other. Communism is where you don't have any classes at all and therefore no state (which is an instrument of the ruling class). What you wrote doesn't apply to Cuba or the USSR.

I believe that the way human society works (yes things have reasons and reactions and things can be predicted pretty easily) ultimately must lead to communism. But I have a hard time imaging it. But sure, 2000 years ago nobody would dare to think about "democracy" and TV. One first step is to implement a socialist system, which is very possible.

The rule of a communist party (if it's communist) doesn't imply communism. Hopefully it implies socialism or the road to it. But if you look at countries like Moldova or China you'll find that those aren't even socialist.

The economic system of a society doesn't necessarily change with different governments, but the goals pursued are usually different.

Quote[/b] ]Good point Thunderbird.

Would Spokesperson feel better if we said that it was leftist regimes that killed millions of people?

Yes.

[-Snafu- 78]

I can't beleive you were more concerned over a defintion than millions of people dying. (Well, I suppose I can after reading various comments of yours.)

Just goes to show your mentality. Your not going to win people's support by making comments as these. I made this point previously in my reply to your PM. You have obviously taken no notice of it.

[Spokesperson 0]

You can't win support by talking on some forum. Support can only be gained if the socio-economic situation changes.

We've discussed the death-tolls before, and you hear it in all newspapers you read. But have you ever read about the death-toll of capitalism and imperialism?

The number of deaths caused by class-enemies is higher than those caused by the struggle of the worker class. But they are pretty much the same. And if we count religion as the tool it is the amount of killed is many times higher.

Sometimes violence is necessary. Or do you think that slaves should submit to their owners? Sometimes the only way to achieve freedom is to fight yourself out. I fully support Spartacus, Lenin, Luxemburg, Mao, Che, Fidel, Prachanda and so on.

Some liberals would call me hypocrite that I support the violence caused by those people while I condemn people like Hitler, Bush, Blair, Merkel, Pinochet, Thatcher, Caesar and so on. But what they fail to understand is that there are classes in society that have different interests. Slaves and their owners have totally different such. And me being a wage-slave I fully support my side in this conflict against those who oppress me and my class.

[-Snafu- 78]

If you are not trying to get people to your point of view or see it from your point then it is utterly pointless arguing in a forum.

Actually I hardly hear of much death tolls by Stalin etc. in newspapers as they deal with current issues. Of which communism is not a major part.

Yes I have read about suffering because of capitalism and imperialism. I have come across it in my interest of history all the time. Also the USSR would come under the imperialism umbrella during the Cold War as well as America. So imperialism really intersects and is not seperate.

Please do not make assumptions about which caused the most deaths unless you can provide figures from a reliable source.

Also you make generalistaions about death tolls of the west etc. Of which you probably calculate from 1000's of years of history. While the modern west has been in existance since the 1800's (and that would be at a push). You would also probably include dictatorships. And these are different. Like the distinction you make between communism and socialism.

Sometimes violence is necessary, like fighting Hitler for example. There are hardly any slaves in the world anymore. Yes sometimes fighting is needed for 'freedom' but mass culling like you support is not needed.

Yes you are a hypocrite condeming Hitlers cull while supporting Stalin's. People find this odd and logically consider you an insane killer. It also makes you look foolish. Which means people will never take you seriously. Everyone is not the same as you. Most are not blood lusting killers and would rather not go through such a thing. We are all human you know.

[Spokesperson 0]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm

Very detailed sources.

So Spartacus was an imperialist when he liberated others than himself?

There have never been any democracies on a national level. Slavery evolves. It evolved into serfdom and wage-slavery. The only difference is how the slavery is separated (or not) from the work you do for your own gain in time and space. Slavery ends with socialism. Democracy begins with communism.

Stalin was good on the whole. But that doesn't mean Stalin would be good in the politics of today. And that's an opinion the ones who were subject of his so called "tyranny" agree with. The majority of the ex-Soviet population like Stalin even if the post-Stalin Soviet government condemned him.

Famine caused by rich peasants opposing democratized collective farming and who burn crops and slaughter animals can't be blamed on Stalin. And if you count in famines under Mao you should count the famines of the western world especially when it was getting industrialised (As in the case of China and the USSR).

The US and UK have killed dozens of millions of civilians in their wars, support for other dictatorships, embargoes and famines.

[w0mbat 0]

Let me post this video in dedication to you Spokesperson

A tribute to Communism