Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now you are totally wrong. Nationalization is a prerequisite to collectivization of existing property and means of production.
No, socialism is a prerequisite of communism, and nationalization is a tenant of socialism. That does not make nationalization a tenant of communism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Talking to communists is just like talking to very religious people. They all strongly believe that their understanding of the idea is the only correct one which makes everybody else dead wrong and enemies
Unfortunately there is no single general body that announces what is officially considered communism and what is not
So what single general body defines anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
There are many views on communism but I suspect most commies realized long time ago that communism is a dangerous utopia: people are natural individualists, very competitive and very possessive. Regardless of the red flavor du jour, going against basic human instincts is utopian and bound to fail.
No true communist would ever advocate top down implimentation. If the population were not collectivized, than they clearly should not be in a communist state. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Not really. Russians experimented with pure collectivism in farming (kolchoz) with terrible effects. They ruined Russian farming within a few years
That was not true collectivism at all. The peasants had no claim to the land they were farming. Do you understand the difference between collectivism and nationalization? Because I dont think you do. The State, by virtue of its "ownership" of land, scraped the profits off the top, and paid the workers based on their "labor". In plain English, thats called STATE RUN CAPITALISM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Apparently once you try to implement collective ownership people stop to care about property altogether...
If only the property were actually collectivized. Oh wait, it wasnt. All profits went to the "Motherland" (aka, the ruling class), while the rabble were paid for their "labor" which was determined by the "Motherland".
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Russian commies also argued that since the state and the nation is in a sense a collective, state ownership is a form of collective ownership when collective is understood as all of the people.
Thats funny, because a communist "state" with ownership means is completely impossible and a direct oxymoron to Marxism.
Keep reading....youll find that is also says 20% of the Bolshevik class, and much that went on to "leadership" came from the gentry.
Is 20% a majority for you? Look what you typed before. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Quite simply, they needed to motivate the rabble to fight their war, because without them, they wouldnt have the manpower.
Sure. Your statement that majority of Russian revolutionaries were gentry is still wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
This is not unlike the wealthy colonists of America inflaming the rabble colonists in to fighting the Revolutionary War for them. After all, Sam Adams and John Hancocks vaginas were purely visible as they ran far from battle when the British landed on their door steps, Jefferson and Madison were missing from the fields, and "give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henry clearly wasnt willing to sacrifice himself, only commanding a small militia in Virginia, for a short time, that saw no combat.
Even in military you don't put your generals on the front line - they are too valuable. They are much more needed elswehere. Anyways, nothing you wrote changes the fact that your claim that majority of bolsheviks were not proletariat and peasants was false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Leaders should be popularily elected and recallable at any time. This would not make them a "class" at all, but a servant of the people.
Sure. And we all should be born equally intelligent and beautiful That's wishful thinking, nothing else. The leaders based on their ability to lead will naturally become a class either you like it or not. Classless society is an utopia. So is communism. There will always be classes as people are not created equal and have different interests and goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
You do not create the definition of revolution. Again, no dictionary on Earth defines revolution as "a bloody violent uprising".
No. The history does. Revolutions are generally violent and bloody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
This is definition one of revolution on Dictionary.com
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
Look at the world "overthrow". You think you can overthrow government in a non-violent way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
How does that not EXACTLY fit what happened in Venezuela?
It doesn't. There was not any resistance hence no need for a revolution or a violent overthrow of the government. . Not every change of government is a revolution, not even every change of system is one. Hong Kong went from Western democracy to communist rule without going through a revolution. Germany went from democracy to a fascist country without a single shot.
Here is someone who has it right. This couple risked it all to begin their own business. They employ others and hope in doing so, their lives also become richer.
Is 20% a majority for you? Look what you typed before. LOL
Sure. Your statement that majority of Russian revolutionaries were gentry is still wrong.
Anyways, nothing you wrote changes the fact that your claim that majority of bolsheviks were not proletariat and peasants was false.
You should probably read before you make criticisms. If you could, you might realize that I never ONCE said the majority of Russian revolutionaries were gentry
I said this
"The Bolsheviks were disproportionately nobles and gentry. Obviously they had to make use of the rabbles man power, because there is no way they could do it on their own. So, the "ruling class" of the Bolsheviks went about spreading propoganda, got enough rabble to join their ranks, and replaced the old ruling classes with themselves."
and
this
"So, let me get this straight, the first real post imperial government, led by the Bolsheviks (who actually considered themselves already a class above the rabble, and were composed 20% of wealthy elites), led by Lenin (who came from Russian nobility) and Trosky, who ALL annointed themselves "leadership", were idealists and proletariats? "
Yet missing from my posts is where I claimed that they were a majority nobles and gentry.
Quote:
Look at the world "overthrow". You think you can overthrow government in a non-violent way?
Yeah you can. Overthrowing something only requires removing the status quo. That can be done in many ways, including pressuring those in charge of the status quo to simply abandon it.
Quote:
It doesn't. There was not any resistance hence no need for a revolution or a violent overthrow of the government. . Not every change of government is a revolution, not even every change of system is one. Hong Kong went from Western democracy to communist rule without going through a revolution. Germany went from democracy to a fascist country without a single shot.
Here you go again, making your own definitions. A violent overthrow is a form of revolution, not an exact synonym for revolution. Revolution does not require any steadfast resistance either.
No, socialism is a prerequisite of communism, and nationalization is a tenant of socialism. That does not make nationalization a tenant of communism.
There is so many definitions of socialism and communism that I give up here. Anyways, both socialism and communism do not like private property, this is a common theme for both systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
So what single general body defines anything?
Well, the Pope defines and represents the Catholic Church, American Psychiatric Association represents psychiatrists in the US and Canada . Do you need more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
No true communist would ever advocate top down implimentation. If the population were not collectivized, than they clearly should not be in a communist state. Period.
I am not going to get involved in some crazy discussion regarding crazy ideology which is by the way responsible for millions of victims around the world. For me all of it is crazy and guilty of terrible atrocities. Whas it 50% of population of Cambodia that perished at hands of their own commies? I think if somebody is a true communist in XXI century he or she requires medical help. By the way I suspect you are more of an anarchist, probably leaning toward Buchanin's views... Am I right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
That was not true collectivism at all. The peasants had no claim to the land they were farming.
C'mon, Comrade... Do some reading. Peasants had what was called "kolchoz" which was theoretically a cooperative of peasants in one specific area who collectively owned the land and collectively worked on the fields. They had a claim of ownership, the same way you have a claim of ownership to common areas in a condominium.
Of course when applied to a business this concept turned to be pure nonsense, it couldn't work in real life and it didn't in Soviet Russia. But it was there
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Do you understand the difference between collectivism and nationalization? Because I dont think you do. The State, by virtue of its "ownership" of land, scraped the profits off the top, and paid the workers based on their "labor". In plain English, thats called STATE RUN CAPITALISM.
I do but you have to understand that Russian communists were claiming that since the majority of population, the proletariat and peasants, took over the government than everything that belongs to that state in essence belongs to the people or the citizens. The state IS the people. Whatever belongs to the state belongs to the people. You may dispute that claim but it does make some sense. The states is no longer considered an oppressor but a collective will of all (or majority of citizens).... Right?
Of course I know it is all crap but not any more crap than the rest of the communist/anarchist propaganda about classless societies, collective property etc. It's all crap no matter what flavor you chose: Russian, Yugoslavian, Chinese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Cuban or North Korean. Same idealistic crap devolving into regimes even more oppressive and bloody than those that they replaced...
There can be no classless society, if you dispose of one ruling class its place will be simply taken by another. That's simple.
"The Bolsheviks were disproportionately nobles and gentry. Obviously they had to make use of the rabbles man power, because there is no way they could do it on their own. So, the "ruling class" of the Bolsheviks went about spreading propoganda, got enough rabble to join their ranks, and replaced the old ruling classes with themselves."
You made it sound like it wasn't the poor who overwhelmingly participated in the revolution. Like it wasn't the poor who disposed of the ruling class of noblemen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Yeah you can. Overthrowing something only requires removing the status quo. That can be done in many ways, including pressuring those in charge of the status quo to simply abandon it.
No. Democratic elections can change the government and status quo. Hitler took power in Germany yet nobody talks about German Revolution.
Overthrowing the government means change of government by force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Revolution does not require any steadfast resistance either.
Yes it does. Otherwise it is just a government change. Nobody talks about a revolution when democratic president is replaced by a republican one. Revolution means an illegal and forcible change of government. French Revolution, American Revolution, Russian Revolution all were violent and bloody.
There is so many definitions of socialism and communism that I give up here. Anyways, both socialism and communism do not like private property, this is a common theme for both systems.
How they treat the property is different though, and that is a very big distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Well, the Pope defines and represents the Catholic Church, American Psychiatric Association represents psychiatrists in the US and Canada . Do you need more?
The American Psychiatric Association does not represent Russian psychiatrists, nor does it even represent American Psychiatrists, its just an organization, not a governing or defining body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
By the way I suspect you are more of an anarchist, probably leaning toward Buchanin's views... Am I right?
Im not familiar with Buchanin, but I disagree with the premise of anarchy completely. I think the end game of anarchy will be, at best, capitalism, at worst a fascist dictatorship.
Quote:
C'mon, Comrade... Do some reading. Peasants had what was called "kolchoz" which was theoretically a cooperative of peasants in one specific area who collectively owned the land and collectively worked on the fields.
Collectively owned everything BUT the land (which was nationalized). They collectively worked the fields, but were not entitled to its collective profits.
Quote:
I do but you have to understand that Russian communists were claiming that since the majority of population, the proletariat and peasants, took over the government than everything that belongs to that state in essence belongs to the people or the citizens. The state IS the people. Whatever belongs to the state belongs to the people. You may dispute that claim but it does make some sense. The states is no longer considered an oppressor but a collective will of all (or majority of citizens).... Right?
1. The proleteriat didnt take over anything, the Bolshevik ruling class did, and sent the shock troop "peasants" back to the farms (or killed them off in some instances).
2. The state being the people is a principle of fascism, pure and simple. Communism rejects the concept of a state at all.
Quote:
Of course I know it is all crap but not any more crap than the rest of the communist/anarchist propaganda about classless societies, collective property etc. It's all crap no matter what flavor you chose: Russian, Yugoslavian, Chinese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Cuban or North Korean. Same idealistic crap devolving into regimes even more oppressive and bloody than those that they replaced...
Actually most of these, as Ive stated before, didnt even attempt or pretend to be Marxist, not even slightly. The goal of all of them, without fail, was to simply replace one ruling class with another. Some managed to get support of the rabble with fear tactics or propaganda, but the rabble never got what they were promissed, or were offered a seat at the table.
Quote:
There can be no classless society, if you dispose of one ruling class its place will be simply taken by another. That's simple.
Again, whether or not it "could" or "has" happened, is irrelevant. It doesnt negate the philosophy.
How they treat the property is different though, and that is a very big distinction.
I don't see a big difference... Once you are against private property you are against vital interests of people
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
The American Psychiatric Association does not represent Russian psychiatrists, nor does it even represent American Psychiatrists, its just an organization, not a governing or defining body.
No but the Pope represent all Roman Catholics around the world and APA defines and classifies mental disorders for all psychiatrist in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Im not familiar with Buchanin, but I disagree with the premise of anarchy completely. I think the end game of anarchy will be, at best, capitalism, at worst a fascist dictatorship.
Strange/ Your rhetoric simply resembles more the anarchists than communists I ever argued with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Collectively owned everything BUT the land (which was nationalized). They collectively worked the fields, but were not entitled to its collective profits.
No, they were entitled to the profits but there weren't any however since collective ownership and management means lack of efficiency. That's a terrible business model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
1. The proleteriat didnt take over anything, the Bolshevik ruling class did, and sent the shock troop "peasants" back to the farms (or killed them off in some instances).
2. The state being the people is a principle of fascism, pure and simple. Communism rejects the concept of a state at all.
That's new to me. Where in the Communist Manifesto can I find that notion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Actually most of these, as Ive stated before, didnt even attempt or pretend to be Marxist, not even slightly. The goal of all of them, without fail, was to simply replace one ruling class with another. Some managed to get support of the rabble with fear tactics or propaganda, but the rabble never got what they were promissed, or were offered a seat at the table.
They all did. Soviet Russia always pretended to be following Marx, Engels and Lenin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Again, whether or not it "could" or "has" happened, is irrelevant. It doesnt negate the philosophy.
What negates the philosophy is the total disrespect for human right to own and the fact that people are neither are born equal nor are equal. Like I said before there is no way to have a classless society while people have different abilities, goals and ambitions. Communists of all factions forget that hence communism is a failed ideology.
You made it sound like it wasn't the poor who overwhelmingly participated in the revolution. Like it wasn't the poor who disposed of the ruling class of noblemen.
I never made it sound like that, what I was saying repeatedly, is that the poor were needed as shock troops to dispose of the existing ruling class, so Lenin, Trotsky and their ilk of gentry could place themselves in power.
In order to do that, they needed to somehow sway the rabble to their side. Lenin did this by pitching Marxism to the them, dispite abandoning nearly every principle, and never intending on ever implementing anything of the sort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
No. Democratic elections can change the government and status quo. Hitler took power in Germany yet nobody talks about German Revolution.
Overthrowing the government means change of government by force.
Elections do not change the government, they change the leadership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Yes it does. Otherwise it is just a government change. Nobody talks about a revolution when democratic president is replaced by a republican one.
Because they arent changing the government, just the leadership.
If a loudly outspoken candidate, protested the whole US Government, and shook his chains around the country, rallying the people to such a level, that the existing government simply resigned, and then they placed him in to power, where he promptly tore the Constitution up, and rewrote it, that would absolutely be considered a revolution.
I don't see a big difference... Once you are against private property you are against vital interests of people
Private property is not a vital interest of anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
No but the Pope represent all Roman Catholics around the world and APA defines and classifies mental disorders for all psychiatrist in the US.
Funny, I was baptized Catholic, went to Catholic church many years.....never considered the pope my representitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Strange/ Your rhetoric simply resembles more the anarchists than communists I ever argued with.
The only concept I share with an anarchist is the abolishment of the state
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
No, they were entitled to the profits but there weren't any however since collective ownership and management means lack of efficiency. That's a terrible business model.
There were plenty of profits. How do you think Stalin could afford to shepherd the Soviet Union in to the cold war, build up the Kremlin, throw his self serving parades in Red Square, and drop statues of himself every where, and win the race to space? The state kept the profits, and paid the worker based on "labor value", which was determined by the "state", not by the traditional concept of labor value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
That's new to me. Where in the Communist Manifesto can I find that notion?
The notion of the disolution of the state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
They all did. Soviet Russia always pretended to be following Marx, Engels and Lenin
Key word, pretended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
What negates the philosophy is the total disrespect for human right to own
You have no "right" to own anything. That is a right afforded to you by a state, and protected by that state as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
and the fact that people are neither are born equal nor are equal.
Depends on how you are defining equal.
Im going to assume you are talking about individual utility. Id agree with you there. However, capitalism severely punishes those with limited utility, as well as impedes those even with high utility, but few means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Like I said before there is now way to have a classless society while people have different abilities, goals and ambitions. Communists of all factions tend to forget that. Communism hence is a failed ideology.
Communism does not limit a persons goals, abilities, or ambitions at all, unless of course a persons ambition is to enslave other people, rule other people, or dominate them by means of economic duress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
