i hope this doesnt cause any offence or anything but i was wondering....

[waraelm]

i was wondering because there seems to be quite a lot how many people on the forums either live in a communist governed country or support it. I'm just curious and i do not mean any offence ( free will and all that). also  if you are communist what is your opinion of it?? since i always like to hear the other side of the story.

 

[arbites_augmented]

i was wondering because there seems to be quite a lot how many people on the forums either live in a communist governed country or support it. I'm just curious and i do not mean any offence ( free will and all that). also  if you are communist what is your opinion of it?? since i always like to hear the other side of the story.

Che?

 

[Archonsod]

The entire forum but you is based in Cuba. We just pretend to be from other countries because we find you capitalist pigdogs so gullible.

 

[waraelm]

i always though the saying was ask a stupid question and expect a stupid answear. not ask a question and get a stupid answear.

 

[Agent Griff]

A Communist governed country? I don't know if we have any Cuban members, at that.

Former Communist maybe. I live in one, though I was born three years after the actual Communism fell. So I'm reaping the yield of Communism all around me. I actually like the old Communist blocks of flats, though, seeing as I actually live in one. They have a homey feel about them. Many of our Communist monuments also look cool, though some of them are pretty kitsch.

You know, deep down, all of these ideologies are the same. Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, what have you. I can't think of other -isms. They are basically made up of a few really powerful, rich and influential people at the top and great hordes of idiots at the bottom. The money of said idiots goes to the few people at the top. Most of us belong to the latter category.

That's basically the story of humanity since cavemen started having a pecking order wherein the weaker dudes started offering the chiefs their women and a share of their food.

EDIT: And you saying applies somewhat, though not as you said it. You asked a quite stupid question and you got reasonable answers, in my opinion.

 

[waraelm]

to true, sadly there all flawed. but they all have somthing good about them exept fascistism.

 

[An4Sh]

to true, sadly there all flawed. but they all have somthing good about them exept fascistism.

What's wrong with loving one's country and wanting to bring it greatness?

 

[kurczak]

i was wondering because there seems to be quite a lot how many people on the forums either live in a communist governed country or support it. I'm just curious and i do not mean any offence ( free will and all that). also  if you are communist what is your opinion of it?? since i always like to hear the other side of the story.

A former citizen of a communist state here. it pretty much sucked all the time, only they way it sucked varied from decade to decade (Not that I was living in all of them, but that's what relatives are good for)

 

[Agent Griff]

Meh, all forms of government go into what I said, so they all suck if you are part of the idiot majority. If you are part of the upper echelon, however, then your life is all set and you don't give a **** about anything. So if you're in the upper echelon of a Fascist or Communist country it won't matter much, since you've still got it good for the rest of your life.

If you're in the lower echelon of any of those countries, then you can argue about the varying levels by which it sucks, much like kurczak said.

 

[Cymro]

I can't think of other -isms.

Rastafarianism.



Tee hee

 

[Bulle]

I'm a socialist, a socialist reformist even but I do have a communistic goal. A class free society.

And I do must say that there is a difference between what you say, and what you do. Was Soviet communistic? Highly debateable.

 

[kurczak]

I'm a socialist, a socialist reformist even but I do have a communistic goal. A class free society.

And I do must say that there is a difference between what you say, and what you do. Was Soviet communistic? Highly debateable.

No, not officially. We (as any other Soviet-block state) were officialy a socialist republic which was building communism. However colloquially the term "communist state" means that it is ruled by a communist party which adheres to classical unreformed, unrevised i.e. Leninist version of Marxism or to Marxism-Leninism if you prefer this term and we were a communist state in that meaning.

 

[Agent Griff]

And I do must say that there is a difference between what you say, and what you do.

That applies to every type of government, I think.

 

[Bulle]

And I do must say that there is a difference between what you say, and what you do.

That applies to every type of government, I think.

Totally, and every human being as well. That's the charm of it.

 

[kurczak]

I'm a socialist, a socialist reformist even but I do have a communistic goal. A class free society.

Oh, I didn't see it the first time. The problem is that you have several ways to reach your goal.

1) Hardcore Marxist - wait until the country in question industrialises and reaches full-grown capitalism. Then overthrow the government and install the dictatorship of the proletariate which has two goals a) prevent a counterrevolution b) install socialism and commence building a communist society.

2) Marx-Leninist - the same, except you don't wait for the country to reach capitalism, you just switch from feudalism to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which contradicts Marx, but who cares - Vladimir Ilyich said it's ok.

3) Anarcho-communist - these folks don't like the state, so they refuse the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as it also is a form of government. Instead they want to reach communism via trade unions. Now this is a shameless travesty. Call it the dictatorship of the proletariate or trade unions, it has a territory, a population and power over the population = it is a state.

4) Revisionist - these people think that elections and generally liberal democracy can usher into a classless society.

The first three ways fail at the very moment the dictatorship of the proletariate assumes power. Altough it is supposed to be a dictatorship of the whole working class, an actual individual dictator emerges (after an optional phase consisting of oligarchy and elimination of fellow oligarchs by the future dictator). Lord Acton's dictum tells us that power tends to corrupt and absolute powers corrupts absolutely. An absolute dictator seldom steps down on his own will and almost everytime such thing happens another dictator will gladly substitute him.

The fourth way will fail in the long term. People won't give up private property and even if they did in a sudden affection, they would reconsider later. Sure, you could oppose the restitution of private property by force, but then you wouldn't be a revisionist anymore.


There is no point in discussing the idea of classless society itself as there is no way to reach it.

 

[Bulle]

I'm the fourth, but I don't belive in forcing people to give up their private property. The change will take probably over a hundred years, when it's started and I think that the mindset and social norms will change with it.

 

[Seff]

I live in a social liberal society. Not exactly communist, though I'm sure you were thinking of Europe/Scandinavia when you mentioned socialistic countries.

 

[kurczak]

I'm the fourth, but I don't belive in forcing people to give up their private property. The change will take probably over a hundred years, when it's started and I think that the mindset and social norms will change with it.

I am convinced that the human needs his private property, his own private universe he can shape to his own image and no mindset neither social norms nor the flow of time can change it. It is a basic need and as such cannot be deprived of for long.

Edit:

I live in a social liberal society. Not exactly communist, though I'm sure you were thinking of Europe/Scandinavia when you mentioned socialistic countries.

I (if it was adressed to me) was referring to the former USSR and his allies when using the term "socialism". Scandinavian countries or France are still pretty liberal when compared to those.

 

[Seff]

It's certainly a very basic instinct to have private property.

 

[Bulle]

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have private possessions, but I do say that the mindset and social norms will change in time.