CDZ Ask Me About Marxism

[Marxist_Trash]

To select a salient quote from it, Lenin's thoughts on seceding states: "In the question of the self-determination of nations, as in every other question, we are interested, first and foremost, in the self-determination of the proletariat within a given nation."

I think the actions of Catalans have shown that they are committed to this. This isn't just some move made by a bunch of businessmen, this independence is something the people of Catalonia truly want. They deserve it as human beings with democratic rights.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ask Me About Marxism

Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo, or Gummo?

 

[Marxist_Trash]

Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo, or Gummo?

Harpo is my favorite = P

 

[Tuatara]

I think my signature speaks for itself. They voted for their independence, and they better well bloody get it.

Lenin wrote an entire treatise on the subject: Lenin: The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Also worth mentioning: the US does not support Catalonia either.

The US only supports democracy when it serves it's own interest.

 

[Tehon]

Incredibly important. The very premise of Marxism is securing the rights of the working class.

However, I can see where this could come into question when the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as the potential for bloody revolution, is concerned. And that is one of the many valid points of attack on Marxism, I will be quite honest.

It isn't really a valid point to attack though. It's a convenient one for those who have a vested interest in silencing the philosophy. It is an intellectually dishonest attack.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is in essence what many Trumpsters were voting for. They want their government taken back from "crony capitalists" or "liberal elite" or insert whatever intellectually dishonest name they want to use in order to pretend that it isn't just simply capitalists that dominate our government.

This is what they were voting for, this is what conservatives believe;

Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

 

[alang1216]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

Why has every communist state to date been authoritarian? Can communism and democracy co-exist?

 

[Tuatara]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

Why has every communist state to date been authoritarian? Can communism and democracy co-exist?

Kind of a loaded question. Democracy has existed in communist countries. Right now US has very good trade and foreign policy with Vietnam and under Obama the relations with Cuba where just beginning to see light. The democratic elections are held under the one party but no government could survive if they were going from Capitalist to Communist back to Capitalist every election. Don't forget that many of the actual events inside communist countries are skewed by American Propaganda.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

Why has every communist state to date been authoritarian? Can communism and democracy co-exist?

The goal of communism is economic equality for all, which is an important basis for actual, direct democracy, in my opinion. Everyone's opinions on a situation, no matter how different they may be, all have equal weight. One person, one vote. Not one person one vote, one corporate executive, one entire election skewed in favor of said executive's interest.

As for why every communist state has been authoritarian, most Trotskyists will blame Stalin and his attempt to bring about the socialism in one state policy. A truly communist government cannot coexist alongside a capitalist one due to the latter's aggressive need for imperialist expansion...and the reason for Stalin's brand of authoritarianism and aggressive expansion of his ideology to other countries was because he needed an economy to prop up the USSR alongside its free world mirror, at the expense of millions of wasted lives.

However, communism and democracy did famously coexist in two places, if I recall correctly: the initial aftermath of the October Revolution, when proletarian soviets wrested control of the Russia from the bourgeoisie provisional government created after the February Revolution in order to nip communism in the bud, and the Paris Commune, which existed for a two months until the Third French Republic fell to the Prussians in May of 1871: this particular example is often referred to as a dictatorship of the proletariat, which could have led to democratic communism if France wasn't at war.

 

[MACAULAY]

O. P.

How about giving your examples of societies where Marxism has been successful?

 

[Marxist_Trash]

I've provided the best examples I could in the post above. However Marxism is at its core an internationally-based movement, thus it cannot truly succeed unless the rest of the world follows suit. It's the reason why Stalinism failed so miserably.

To give you a straight answer on the subject: no, I cannot. And any example I would give beyond the first two would be even more of a stretch.

 

[JoeMoma]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

Why has every communist state to date been authoritarian? Can communism and democracy co-exist?

The goal of communism is economic equality for all, which is an important basis for actual, direct democracy, in my opinion. Everyone's opinions on a situation, no matter how different they may be, all have equal weight. One person, one vote. Not one person one vote, one corporate executive, one entire election skewed in favor of said executive's interest.

As for why every communist state has been authoritarian, most Trotskyists will blame Stalin and his attempt to bring about the socialism in one state policy. A truly communist government cannot coexist alongside a capitalist one due to the latter's aggressive need for imperialist expansion...and the reason for Stalin's brand of authoritarianism and aggressive expansion of his ideology to other countries was because he needed an economy to prop up the USSR alongside its free world mirror, at the expense of millions of wasted lives.

However, communism and democracy did famously coexist in two places, if I recall correctly: the initial aftermath of the October Revolution, when proletarian soviets wrested control of the Russia from the bourgeoisie provisional government created after the February Revolution in order to nip communism in the bud, and the Paris Commune, which existed for a two months until the Third French Republic fell to the Prussians in May of 1871: this particular example is often referred to as a dictatorship of the proletariat, which could have led to democratic communism if France wasn't at war.

Economic equality for all........at what sacrifice?

 

[MACAULAY]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

Why has every communist state to date been authoritarian? Can communism and democracy co-exist?

The goal of communism is economic equality for all, which is an important basis for actual, direct democracy, in my opinion. Everyone's opinions on a situation, no matter how different they may be, all have equal weight. One person, one vote. Not one person one vote, one corporate executive, one entire election skewed in favor of said executive's interest.

As for why every communist state has been authoritarian, most Trotskyists will blame Stalin and his attempt to bring about the socialism in one state policy. A truly communist government cannot coexist alongside a capitalist one due to the latter's aggressive need for imperialist expansion...and the reason for Stalin's brand of authoritarianism and aggressive expansion of his ideology to other countries was because he needed an economy to prop up the USSR alongside its free world mirror, at the expense of millions of wasted lives.

However, communism and democracy did famously coexist in two places, if I recall correctly: the initial aftermath of the October Revolution, when proletarian soviets wrested control of the Russia from the bourgeoisie provisional government created after the February Revolution in order to nip communism in the bud, and the Paris Commune, which existed for a two months until the Third French Republic fell to the Prussians in May of 1871: this particular example is often referred to as a dictatorship of the proletariat, which could have led to democratic communism if France wasn't at war.

Economic equality for all........at what sacrifice?

_________

Human initiative.

It has always been the case.

The O. P. is young.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

Ideally? The sacrifice of a few privileged people's opulent lifestyles that get toned down to happily comfortable.

In reality? Likely some form of conflict between proletariat and bourgeoisie that shakes the foundations of society to its core. It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say otherwise...Marxism is inherently based in the concept of struggle.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

The O. P. is young.

I am. Perhaps I'll change as I get older and talk to more people on site and elsewhere. But just let me get my liberal phase out of me first

 

[JoeMoma]

The O. P. is young.

I am. Perhaps I'll change as I get older and talk to more people on site and elsewhere. But just let me get my liberal phase out of me first

Time is a cure to being young.

 

[Tuatara]

The O. P. is young.

I am. Perhaps I'll change as I get older and talk to more people on site and elsewhere. But just let me get my liberal phase out of me first

You are doing fine. Many on this site see no difference between liberalism, socialism and communism.

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

People have theorized that Marx and Engels wrote mostly while imbibing in wormwood or inspired by wormwood driven experiences.

 

[Marxist_Trash]

People have theorized that Marx and Engels wrote mostly while imbibing in wormwood or inspired by wormwood driven experiences.

An incorrect theory most likely...if you're talking about absinthe, it never was a hallucinogenic. It was touted as such by a French doctor named Valentine Magnan, who induced muscle spasms in a guinea pig by subjecting it to wormwood vapors as part of an experiment involving the deleterious effects of absinthe and wormwood. The control that was breathing alcohol vapors did not experience the same effect, and thus, Magnan concluded that absinthe was a dangerous drink.

It has been proven systematically throughout the years that thujone, the active compound in wormwood that causes these spasms, does not cause hallucinations, merely loss of muscle control when taken in excessively high doses. Of course, it would be seen as a hallucinogenic in these times without modern medical practices to confirm otherwise.

I do however, believe that Marx and Engels were influenced by a legacy of Enlightenment Era philosophers that came before them: Marxism stands on the shoulders of intellectual giants. Though I don't doubt they indulged in absinthe at some point or another, it probably wasn't the reason for the Communist Manifesto's existence.

 

[depotoo]

I can't give you all the answers, but I'd like to discuss people's objections to it, as well as why I still believe it's a worthwhile philosophy. Not looking to change minds so much as to have an exchange of an ideas. Or at least provide an understanding of how I and most Marxists I know think about politics, the damage done to the idea of Communism by the USSR and governments like it, economics, etc.

Where have you lived under Marxism?

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

I see you're equipped with arguments concerning the absinthe ...