G. Beck had an interesting point on his show.

[amrchaos]

By no stretch is communism authoritarianism. It's clear you know nothing of communism. If anything, the greatest flaw of communism is that it tends to have too weak a government in those lines which encourage direct democracy.

challenge.

i dont think that you could affect the destruction of class structure in a society without authoritarian tactics. i think the main flaw is that communism attempts to run against this existential anthropology rather than with it. ala the 'pursuit of happiness'.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objejctive should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves but rather to change the adversarial nature of these classes to one of cooperation for mutual benefit and healthy competition rather than aggression, unhealthy competition, and exploitation.

So, it is possible to have a heirachy in the communist society.

So, why would anyone want communism, then?

Let me clarify this--why would a communist want communism?

 

[ihopehefails]

ihhf is misdefining terms again. Any one far to his left is probably just a bit right of center. For ihhf it is merely a mistake in perception and vision.

I wonder why it seems to be admirable to be center but not far right. No one every criticizes someone for being far left but someone who is 'far right' is deemed unsuitable, unstable, or just plain ignorable. Michael Moore is pretty far left but he never gets criticized for not being in the middle.

In my opinion, people who demand everyone be in the middle are saying you want everyone to think the same which is nothing more than gentle totalitarianism. I'm not saying I will be rounded up in deathcamps but perhaps others seem to say I am in the 'fringes' or not in the middle (booo!) and that will prod me and everyone who shares my opinion to move towards the middle thus removing all nonconformist opinions.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

These examples--Is that communism or communalism?

There is a difference!!


Or--this argument that communism was never practiced at the national scale--that could be propaganda due to every attempt turned into an embarrassing humanitarian mess! You can only go so far to the left or right before society falls apart.

Yet, these left/right extremists just cannot learn that. Being blinded by their ideas and all...

Communism, by definition, is small and local, with federations or confederations of independent members. Kinda like the Constitution with a conscience.

A small and local federation or confederation??

(Con)Federations are rarely small, they can cover a geographical area like the early 13 states.

Are you fucking retarded?

The local governments hold all the power, with federations or confederations of independent communist communities/cities/states.

Kinda like the Constitution, as I've pointed out many times before.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So, it is possible to have a heirachy in the communist society.

It is possible to have a heirarchy in a federation or confederation of communist states. Kinda like the FF set up a hierarchy of semi-independent states.

Are you really this dense?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

. No one every criticizes someone for being far left but someone who is 'far right' is deemed unsuitable, unstable, or just plain ignorable. Michael Moore is pretty far left but he never gets criticized for not being in the middle.

You're retarded, aren't you?

 

[ihopehefails]

By no stretch is communism authoritarianism. It's clear you know nothing of communism. If anything, the greatest flaw of communism is that it tends to have too weak a government in those lines which encourage direct democracy.

challenge.

i dont think that you could affect the destruction of class structure in a society without authoritarian tactics. i think the main flaw is that communism attempts to run against this existential anthropology rather than with it. ala the 'pursuit of happiness'.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objejctive should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves but rather to change the adversarial nature of these classes to one of cooperation for mutual benefit and healthy competition rather than aggression, unhealthy competition, and exploitation.

How is that different than a fascist utopia where everyone within a nation becomes a giant collective operating under a single will. Wouldn't that single will eliminate all aggression, unhealthy competition in favor of that nations mutual benefit?

 

[amrchaos]

ihhf is misdefining terms again. Any one far to his left is probably just a bit right of center. For ihhf it is merely a mistake in perception and vision.

I wonder why it seems to be admirable to be center but not far right. No one every criticizes someone for being far left but someone who is 'far right' is deemed unsuitable, unstable, or just plain ignorable. Michael Moore is pretty far left but he never gets criticized for not being in the middle.

In my opinion, people who demand everyone be in the middle are saying you want everyone to think the same which is nothing more than gentle totalitarianism. I'm not saying I will be rounded up in deathcamps but perhaps others seem to say I am in the 'fringes' or not in the middle (booo!) and that will prod me and everyone who shares my opinion to move towards the middle thus removing all nonconformist opinions.

The far right are extremists
The far left are extremists too, but the far right tends to be more vocal and insulting with their propaganda!!

Two centrists do not think the same. Nor is anyone telling you to be a centrists. I think I am a centrists. McCain is a centrists. Evan Bayh is a centrists. Bayh and McCain disagree on many issues. I think McCain is an authoritarian prick and Bayh a whiny quitter. Difference!!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

challenge.

i dont think that you could affect the destruction of class structure in a society without authoritarian tactics. i think the main flaw is that communism attempts to run against this existential anthropology rather than with it. ala the 'pursuit of happiness'.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objejctive should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves but rather to change the adversarial nature of these classes to one of cooperation for mutual benefit and healthy competition rather than aggression, unhealthy competition, and exploitation.

How is that different than a fascist utopia where everyone within a nation becomes a giant collective operating under a single will. Wouldn't that single will eliminate all aggression, unhealthy competition in favor of that nations mutual benefit?

Are you purposely this dense?

When did I say anything about 'a giant collective operating under a single will'?

I specifically said 'It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends.'

Reading Comprehension - Free Worksheets

Reading Comprehension - Printables & Worksheets

Reading Comprehension Connection: Start a Sample Lesson!

 

[ihopehefails]

. No one every criticizes someone for being far left but someone who is 'far right' is deemed unsuitable, unstable, or just plain ignorable. Michael Moore is pretty far left but he never gets criticized for not being in the middle.

You're retarded, aren't you?

Perhaps I didn't put enough thought into my answer buy you sure did put a lot of thought into yours "You're retarded, aren't you?" Anyone who can put that sentence together and be able to convey such meaning in it must not be retarded. You are not a retard at all. In fact, you are the most unretarded person I have ever met. You are way up there in the unretarded scale.

Even other unretards think you are unretarded...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Perhaps I didn't put enough thought into my answer

No 'perhaps' about it.

 

[ihopehefails]

Perhaps I didn't put enough thought into my answer

No 'perhaps' about it.

That is very unretarded of you.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

By no stretch is communism authoritarianism. It's clear you know nothing of communism. If anything, the greatest flaw of communism is that it tends to have too weak a government in those lines which encourage direct democracy.

You can't argue with facts so you post a macro?



I already showed you what communism looks like and I already showed you what capitalism looks like.

Evidently my macro struck a chord......yes....that's what communism really looks like....

Are you fucking retarded?

The local governments hold all the power, with federations or confederations of independent communist communities/cities/states.

Kinda like the Constitution, as I've pointed out many times before.

Authoritarianism can be centralized or de-centralized...or a combo of both...

...do NOT compare communism with our Constitution...

 

[ihopehefails]

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] Fascists identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[16] Fascists claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, fascists claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[17][18] Fascism rejects and resists autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.[19] Fascists consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.[19]

In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, fascists claim that pluralism is a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety

What happens when you create the classless society? You eliminate an aspect of one's own identity such as their class in favor of the single class. Its no different than fascist attempt to eliminate 'pluralism' but applied in a different way. One was to create a collective of the nation the other was to create a collective of the middle-class. They were both totalitarian but applied their totalitarianism on different aspects of humanity. One was for the nation and the other was for the working man which is why Marx said that the proletariat don't have a nation and Hitler asked rhetorically "How can one not have a nation?"

 

[antagon]

By no stretch is communism authoritarianism. It's clear you know nothing of communism. If anything, the greatest flaw of communism is that it tends to have too weak a government in those lines which encourage direct democracy.

challenge.

i dont think that you could affect the destruction of class structure in a society without authoritarian tactics. i think the main flaw is that communism attempts to run against this existential anthropology rather than with it. ala the 'pursuit of happiness'.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objejctive should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves but rather to change the adversarial nature of these classes to one of cooperation for mutual benefit and healthy competition rather than aggression, unhealthy competition, and exploitation.

i could see how commie societies could work from the inception that way.. there would have to be authoritarian fascism to bring it about on an existing system where people relish the tangible valuation of their 'specialty'. (for my purposes, 'fascism' is a philosophy-driven society) hence lenin/castro/mao taking their snips of commie philosophy and ramming it down the throats of the cappies who were in place.

i really dont see the connection between commies and nazis, except for commies not pleased with their willing commune getting nazi on cappies to force it on them. similarly cappies and tree-huggers get nazi about their causes. you could liken anyone or group who strongly believes something and thinks others should concur to a fascist. i wouldnt say fascism is a system at all. communism is definitely a system, or bunch thereof.

 

[ihopehefails]

challenge.

i dont think that you could affect the destruction of class structure in a society without authoritarian tactics. i think the main flaw is that communism attempts to run against this existential anthropology rather than with it. ala the 'pursuit of happiness'.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objejctive should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves but rather to change the adversarial nature of these classes to one of cooperation for mutual benefit and healthy competition rather than aggression, unhealthy competition, and exploitation.

i could see how commie societies could work from the inception that way.. there would have to be authoritarian fascism to bring it about on an existing system where people relish the tangible valuation of their 'specialty'. (for my purposes, 'fascism' is a philosophy-driven society) hence lenin/castro/mao taking their snips of commie philosophy and ramming it down the throats of the cappies who were in place.

i really dont see the connection between commies and nazis, except for commies not pleased with their willing commune getting nazi on cappies to force it on them. similarly cappies and tree-huggers get nazi about their causes. you could liken anyone or group who strongly believes something and thinks others should concur to a fascist. i wouldnt say fascism is a system at all. communism is definitely a system, or bunch thereof.

This should be the reason not to support those kind of societies regardless of how much better it would work.

Fascism and communism were not 100% identical but fascism came right out of the same thinking as communism and was sold as a third way as a hybrid between communism and capatilism. It still had the same collective thinking as communism but it was applied on a national scale which is why fascism was hyper-nationalistic while communism was completely devoid of any sense of national identity. The point is is that both systems were both totalitarian and both systems had the same communist goals of creating a classless society.

The difference was that fascism wanted to retain its national identity.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What happens when you create the classless society?

Nothing.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objective should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

there would have to be authoritarian fascism to bring it about on an existing system where people relish the tangible valuation of their 'specialty'. (for my purposes, 'fascism' is a philosophy-driven society) hence lenin/castro/mao taking their snips of commie philosophy and ramming it down the throats of the cappies who were in place.

Come again?

 

[ihopehefails]

What happens when you create the classless society?

Nothing.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objective should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves...

I don't think you can create a society of no economic class whatsoever since people will always be of a certain economic level. What you are creating in a classless society is a society of no class distinctions which turning everyone into a proletariat. It attempts to eliminate class distinction in the same way national socialist wanted to eliminate plurality distinction (or civil society) within a nation.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What happens when you create the classless society?

Nothing.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objective should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves...

I don't think you can create a society of no economic class whatsoever

Illiteracy: I detect it in your posts.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objective should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves...

since people will always be of a certain economic level. What you are creating in a classless society is a society of no class distinctions which turning everyone into a proletariat.

There is only one proletariat. Again, the illiteracy issue.

 

[ihopehefails]

Nothing.

I don't think you can create a society of no economic class whatsoever

Illiteracy: I detect it in your posts.

It is impossible to destroy all classes. Only fools seek such an ends. There will always be a necessary division of labour, and this division of labour gives rise to our first classes- the agricultural workers, the industrial workers, the bureaucrats, the petty bourgeoisie, the medical professionals, and so on. The objective should be not an attempt to destroy the existence of these different specialties or of other classes into which the People might organize themselves...

since people will always be of a certain economic level. What you are creating in a classless society is a society of no class distinctions which turning everyone into a proletariat.

There is only one proletariat. Again, the illiteracy issue.

Thats the goal isn't it. To first create a society of a workers community and eventually that workers community will shed all aspects of nation and then the world will unite in giant workers community. That is what they mean by Workers of the world Unite! Which is nothing more than world wide totalitarianism.