Comrade nathan
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Hey are there any communist here, if not lets start a discussion
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Communist (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Comrade nathan
- Start date
George W. Bush
Banned
I'd like to introduce the last 50 years of economic development as Exhibit A.
um..
hip hop antagoniser
ahehehehhe
Comrade nathan
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Go on then and lets see if you dont just come up with right wing cliche bias.
...
^___^
i can't wait till Newbie comes on...
um..
hip hop antagoniser
tell me, why should i chose communism over capitalism or liberalism?
...
^___^
Homer: In theory..communism works!
George W. Bush
Banned
uh, I already have. I think you know the point I'm raising, and your response hasn't exactly blown me away. If you really want me to debate the merits of communism with you, I want you to agree to some preliminary conditions
a) that we are both willing to change our mind should the other side present a logically sound argument for their various economic system
b) you tell me what is classified as 'right wing cliche bias', but be warned that facts don't count.
However, I am afraid you are a young idealist with a dog collar on your neck and a hatred of the West in your heart.
Comrade nathan
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Ahahaha dog collar around my neck. The guy quoting the simpsons what a fool.
a) ok
B) i will point hem out were neccesary
a) ok
B) i will point hem out were neccesary
um..
hip hop antagoniser
go on then!
how are you going to account for greed and incompetence in an egalitarian society? how are the state and the workers going to exist in harmony, without conflict?
how are you going to account for greed and incompetence in an egalitarian society? how are the state and the workers going to exist in harmony, without conflict?
George W. Bush
Banned
No, I'd rather you start now. That way when I say something like "Communism takes away the incentive for success that the free market system possesses" you can't dodge it with RIGHT WING CLICHE BIAS!!!!
Oh and, answer um...'s question.
um..
hip hop antagoniser
dont opress me, fascist!
Snapwizard
Snapy
Does born in a communist country make me a commie??
Macccca
wazzlewoozle
hey look im a commie,
i hate the government,
im cool,
people look at me!
i hate the government,
im cool,
people look at me!
Comrade nathan
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,170
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
The workers are the state. Communism takes away personal succeses (wich the free trade causes success to come by expliotation) and brings the incentive of nation success.
um..
hip hop antagoniser
but really, who in our modern day society would want to put the state over the individual? communism seems to forget that people are people, instead seeing them as tools to advance the state, which leads to individual neglect. and if people don't have any personal incentive to work better, they're not going to. for instance, i'm imagining you would see a communist state as having universal wages/ownership for all, so everyone gets a fair go. but how are you going to treat say, a doctor, who has a pretty hard job, the same as a garbage man? how do you expect them to wish for national success if they look over their shoulder and see somebody doing half as much work as them but still getting the same rewards?
idealism can only take you so far, my friend.
idealism can only take you so far, my friend.
euripidies
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2004
- Messages
- 155
umm.. you dont seem to know what communism. to start there are different types of communism, Marxist communism(im a Marxist), Thomas More's Utopia anarchic communism and many other types.
now you seem to have this idea that communism is a state, whats the go with that its way off totally wrong. ill put in a passage from Lenins state and revolution to clear that up, its pretty much what a state means to a Marxist.
"Let us being with the most popular of Engels' works, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, the sixth edition of which was published in Stuttgart as far back as 1894. We have to translate the quotations from the German originals, as the Russian translations, while very numerous, are for the most part either incomplete or very unsatisfactory.
Summing up his historical analysis, Engels says:
"The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." (Pp.177-78, sixth edition)[1]
This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism with regard to the historical role and the meaning of the state. The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.
It is on this most important and fundamental point that the distortion of Marxism, proceeding along two main lines, begins.
On the one hand, the bourgeois, and particularly the petty-bourgeois, ideologists, compelled under the weight of indisputable historical facts to admit that the state only exists where there are class antagonisms and a class struggle, "correct" Marx in such a way as to make it appear that the state is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. According to Marx, the state could neither have arisen nor maintained itself had it been possible to reconcile classes. From what the petty-bourgeois and philistine professors and publicists say, with quite frequent and benevolent references to Marx, it appears that the state does reconcile classes. According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of "order", which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes. In the opinion of the petty-bourgeois politicians, however, order means the reconciliation of classes, and not the oppression of one class by another; to alleviate the conflict means reconciling classes and not depriving the oppressed classes of definite means and methods of struggle to overthrow the oppressors.
For instance, when, in the revolution of 1917, the question of the significance and role of the state arose in all its magnitude as a practical question demanding immediate action, and, moreover, action on a mass scale, all the Social-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks descended at once to the petty-bourgeois theory that the "state" "reconciles" classes. Innumerable resolutions and articles by politicians of both these parties are thoroughly saturated with this petty-bourgeois and philistine "reconciliation" theory. That the state is an organ of the rule of a definite class which cannot be reconciled with its antipode (the class opposite to it) is something the petty-bourgeois democrats will never be able to understand. Their attitude to the state is one of the most striking manifestations of the fact that our Socialist- Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are not socialists at all (a point that we Bolsheviks have always maintained), but petty-bourgeois democrats using near-socialist phraseology.
On the other hand, the "Kautskyite" distortion of Marxism is far more subtle. "Theoretically", it is not denied that the state is an organ of class rule, or that class antagonisms are irreconcilable. But what is overlooked or glossed over is this: if the state is the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, if it is a power standing above society and "alienating itself more and more from it", it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this "alienation". As we shall see later, Marx very explicitly drew this theoretically self-evident conclusion on the strength of a concrete historical analysis of the tasks of the revolution. And as we shall show in detail further on it is this conclusion which Kautsky has "forgotten" and distorted."
now you seem to have this idea that communism is a state, whats the go with that its way off totally wrong. ill put in a passage from Lenins state and revolution to clear that up, its pretty much what a state means to a Marxist.
"Let us being with the most popular of Engels' works, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, the sixth edition of which was published in Stuttgart as far back as 1894. We have to translate the quotations from the German originals, as the Russian translations, while very numerous, are for the most part either incomplete or very unsatisfactory.
Summing up his historical analysis, Engels says:
"The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." (Pp.177-78, sixth edition)[1]
This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism with regard to the historical role and the meaning of the state. The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.
It is on this most important and fundamental point that the distortion of Marxism, proceeding along two main lines, begins.
On the one hand, the bourgeois, and particularly the petty-bourgeois, ideologists, compelled under the weight of indisputable historical facts to admit that the state only exists where there are class antagonisms and a class struggle, "correct" Marx in such a way as to make it appear that the state is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. According to Marx, the state could neither have arisen nor maintained itself had it been possible to reconcile classes. From what the petty-bourgeois and philistine professors and publicists say, with quite frequent and benevolent references to Marx, it appears that the state does reconcile classes. According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of "order", which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes. In the opinion of the petty-bourgeois politicians, however, order means the reconciliation of classes, and not the oppression of one class by another; to alleviate the conflict means reconciling classes and not depriving the oppressed classes of definite means and methods of struggle to overthrow the oppressors.
For instance, when, in the revolution of 1917, the question of the significance and role of the state arose in all its magnitude as a practical question demanding immediate action, and, moreover, action on a mass scale, all the Social-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks descended at once to the petty-bourgeois theory that the "state" "reconciles" classes. Innumerable resolutions and articles by politicians of both these parties are thoroughly saturated with this petty-bourgeois and philistine "reconciliation" theory. That the state is an organ of the rule of a definite class which cannot be reconciled with its antipode (the class opposite to it) is something the petty-bourgeois democrats will never be able to understand. Their attitude to the state is one of the most striking manifestations of the fact that our Socialist- Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are not socialists at all (a point that we Bolsheviks have always maintained), but petty-bourgeois democrats using near-socialist phraseology.
On the other hand, the "Kautskyite" distortion of Marxism is far more subtle. "Theoretically", it is not denied that the state is an organ of class rule, or that class antagonisms are irreconcilable. But what is overlooked or glossed over is this: if the state is the product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms, if it is a power standing above society and "alienating itself more and more from it", it is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this "alienation". As we shall see later, Marx very explicitly drew this theoretically self-evident conclusion on the strength of a concrete historical analysis of the tasks of the revolution. And as we shall show in detail further on it is this conclusion which Kautsky has "forgotten" and distorted."
Snapwizard
Snapy
Communsion?? Communism
Actaully thats what communism is suppose to be about, the people, but somehow in pactice the potitcans always seem to screw things over!!