What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Dark Origins of Communism

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
It's not communism, it is authoritarianism that always leads to starvation but I take your point. My point is that every economy, including ours, is mixed and has elements of communism, socialism, and capitalism because there is no other way. Only the proportions of each will vary.
Let's start with what you generally call socialism? Communist mimicry of "socialism" or real socialism in the sense of Proudhon, where everything is privately owned and there are no proletarians or slaves?
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
Communism is not a system that is fundamentally different from monopoly capitalism. Communism is an absolute monopoly of capital, which turns the proletarian into a slave to capital, depriving him of all levers of management of productive capital. When the proletarian is unable to resist the system, he turns into a slave to the system, he no longer needs to be attracted by market means, a whip is enough. Marx and Engels said exactly this, they did not hide the fact that communism is just the upper stage of capitalism.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
You can dig even deeper. Where did the question come from? In philosophy, the question was raised of the alienation of the producer from the product of his labor. Giving up subsistence farming, when the trader solves the issues of commodity production and distribution rather than the producer. Traditionally, the merchant tries to fraud and there is an infringement of the worker and his lack of rights. The way to overcome this problem is that the worker does not lose control over production and distribution of commodities. This is the exact opposite of communism, where he is only a labor, and all control over capital and goods belongs to the administration.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
To put it simply, if all control over capital is in the hands of a Bolshevik, then where is he not a capitalist and his system not a capitalism?
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
In terms of capitalism and Bolshevism, the labor fund itself is also capital. And the main difference between modern capitalism and Bolshevism lies here. Under "liberal" capitalism, labor resources are attracted through the market, this gives relative freedom, does not make the proletarian a slave. There is compulsion to work here anyway, because as a rule, the lower the salary, the more you have to work for food, but in any case there is no slavery, there is freedom to choose a place of work.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
In capitalism with a market-based distribution of labor, there is a monopoly conspiracy. Capitalists do not buy labor power at a high price, they do not compete for it, thereby lowering wages. The proletarian is the seller of labor, and he cannot sell it dearly because of this monopoly collusion of employers.
But this is still better than when you are not asked at all where you want to live and work and how much to get for your work. In addition, proletarians in such a situation can still defend their rights by associations of trade unions.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
2,606
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Let's start with what you generally call socialism? Communist mimicry of "socialism" or real socialism in the sense of Proudhon, where everything is privately owned and there are no proletarians or slaves?
I'm far from an anarchist. To me, socialism (not the Democratic Socialism of Bernie) means the government builds, owns, and operates a part of the economy. This is what Obama was referring to when he was famously taken out of context saying "you didn't build that". He was referring to the bridges, roads, (gov't regulated) utilities, etc. My county owns the road that runs past my house and my taxes support its' maintenance.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
I'm far from an anarchist. To me, socialism (not the Democratic Socialism of Bernie) means the government builds, owns, and operates a part of the economy. This is what Obama was referring to when he was famously taken out of context saying "you didn't build that". He was referring to the bridges, roads, (gov't regulated) utilities, etc. My county owns the road that runs past my house and my taxes support its' maintenance.
This is usually referred to as the welfare state. All countries like this now
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
8,326
Reaction score
759
Points
155
Location
All in your mind
College students having little knowledge of history still think its cool to be a marxist.


Preppy Progressives

After the French Revolution was defeated, the re-installed hereditary ruling class split into two different factions about what to do to prevent the common people from taking over. One was reactionary, using the strategy of nipping the smallest sign of revolt in the bud. The other was Socialist, where the elitists would take over the democratic movements and become totalitarian tyrants over them. To make it look like they were honestly behind the common people, the heiristocratic Left would kill off their classmates on the reactionary side.

Socialism offers a utopia of the final stage of history, giving its ruling clique absolute power to violently eliminate all traces of the previous stages. That's why it appeals to those whose dynastic tradition brainwashed them into believing that they were Born to Rule. A society in which success is determined by birth rather than worth will create and control its own fake opposition.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
8,326
Reaction score
759
Points
155
Location
All in your mind
Lenin bluntly stated that the Prussian model of state Junker capitalism is almost communism. These are his words.
The only difference is that free movement is abolished, and the Bolshevik party nomenclature becomes junkers. What was done 30th
Simply put, slavery is tightening and capital is completely in the hands of Bolshevism
Communism Is Capitalism, Jr.

Lenin and his executed terrorist brother were aristocrats. The cradle of Communism is the university, which, if truth could be told, is designed strictly for richkids living off an allowance. The no-talent brown-nosing plebeian students are nothing but teenagers who are afraid to grow up.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
8,326
Reaction score
759
Points
155
Location
All in your mind
This is an apparent paradox, in the terms of the Bolsheviks he was a reactionary, but they needed his preaching of humility in the face of villainy, so they promoted him.
Frogs Hop With Their Hands Up

That reminds of why the Nazis allowed Antigone to be shown during the occupation. It seemed to promote disobedience to the ruler, but the result of her revolt was so hopeless and depressing that it had the effect of accepting tyranny rather than go through what she and her fiancé did.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
8,326
Reaction score
759
Points
155
Location
All in your mind
In the 1930s, the Bolsheviks created a caste of "Urkagans", the kings of the criminal world, who were created from the "ofeny", petty traders, pickpockets and crooks, to fight the Zhigansky movement of former White Guards in prisons and to "reform the nation". They called them socially close, and introduced them into the gulag system, where they collaborated with the administration and mocked political prisoners, among whom there were many children. They physically and morally crushed them, could kill or rape them with impunity. This caste weakened during the eve of the collapse of Bolshevism, after the war, during the "bitch wars", but they are still preserved. They became entrenched again during the reign of Brezhnev. And they still terrorize prisoners and even free civilians.
(Much of this can be found in the books of Solzhenitsyn, he was a direct witness to these events)
Progs' Pet Pit Bulls

That's what our Leftist intend to use their favored Afram thugs for.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
Frogs Hop With Their Hands Up

That reminds of why the Nazis allowed Antigone to be shown during the occupation. It seemed to promote disobedience to the ruler, but the result of her revolt was so hopeless and depressing that it had the effect of accepting tyranny rather than go through what she and her fiancé did.
Goebbels also adored Dostoevsky
But the National Socialist regime was even more controversial than the Bolshevik regime. They had something in their plans aimed at restoring the autonomies destroyed by the Bolsheviks and the Chinese, in particular, they planned to establish the Volga-Don Reichskommissariat, which corresponded to the Cossack steppe lands, which before the Bolsheviks had autonomy, and they planned to restore Turkestan.
Germany itself was a Frankenstein made from Austro-Hungary and Prussia, perhaps this explains this inconsistency.
It is also strange that before uniting Austria and starting a big war, they destroyed the austrian fascist regime there, which was obviously hostile to German National Socialism.
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
Moreover, they planned the General Government precisely on the territory of Austria and Western Ukraine. In this one can see claims to the legacy from Austria Hungary and not Germany.
Greater_German_Reich_NS_Administration_1944_Variant.png
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
The party itself was also extremely controversial. The northern wing of the NSDAP gravitated towards left-wing ideas
And Goebbels was not just leftist, he praised the Bolshevik ideas
In fact, northern Nazis and Bolsheviks had a common root in the Baltic countries and Prussian Junkers
Lenin made the revolution with German money, and he praised Junker Capitalism
 
Last edited:

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
6,703
Points
918
It must since it cannot be any form of Capitalism. Our Constitution established a Government with the social power to do Things.
of course it can be capitalism. The Govt can be a purchaser of goods, services and real estate.

Of course our Constitution allowed the Govt to do “social” things.

That’s not socialism. I don’t think you know what socialism is
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
what socialism is
The only true socialism is what was called "socialism" by those who invented it, Proudhon and others. What is now called socialism is Otto Bismarck's state capitalism, Prussian Junker capitalism. Bolshevism is its final stage turning into slavery
 

rupol2000

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
231
Points
63
Of course our Constitution allowed the Govt to do “social” things.
This is called the welfare state.
The first to start doing "social" things were also the Prussians, and it was they who gave birth to both the left wing of the National Socialists and Bolshevism
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
11,087
Reaction score
6,703
Points
918
This is called the welfare state.
The first to start doing "social" things were also the Prussians, and it was they who gave birth to both the left wing of the National Socialists and Bolshevism
well “social” things can also simply be a public library…
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top