Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**Djoser** · 05-10-2011, 02:22 AM

(05-10-2011 12:03 AM)cleef Wrote: Never feel bad asking questions mate! Everyone here is learning!

Sean pretty much hit the nail on the head. It is the working class seizing the means of production in society and this property is owned by the community.

As for why america was against it is because the U.S is a capitalist society. Capitalism is an opposing force of communism as it is an economic system whereby the means of production are privately owned and operated for the profit of a few

(Please note that the USSR was not communist by the marxist defintion but state-capitalist)

The USSR was not Communist at all under any definition. It never achieved it.

**The Vegan Marxist** · 05-10-2011, 02:31 AM

(05-10-2011 01:50 AM)shakur420 Wrote: Right socialists utilize the term "Socialism" to describe the interim period between the fall of capitalism and the achievement of a stateless, classless society they call "Communism".

Left socialists utilize the term "Socialism" to describe workers control over production. They don't use the term "Communism", as workers control over production and real Democracy in society is their goal. They see workers control and Democracy throughout society being co-dependent and therefore do not restrict the use of the term "Socialism" to describe the interim period mentioned above - a period of class warfare.

In short, Communism is to Marxists what Socialism is to everybody else. It's pretty easy to understand, once, of course, you learn how to decipher marxist, capitalist and anarchist literature/terms.

I agree on the reasons other people gave about why Socialism/Communism was demonized by the U.S. and accurately described as a threat to it's dominance. Good article.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm

I still call bullshit on your "left", "right" deviations. Every Marxist is a leftist. Just not the left you want to stand with. Rightist "marxists" are very idealist and stick to old orders that committed errors (which were done under sometimes repressive measures). Whereas, those of us on the left wish to update Marxism as conditions continue to change and fix whatever errors were committed in the past.

**Asshole** · 05-10-2011, 03:06 AM

(05-10-2011 01:40 AM)zanj uhuru Wrote:
(05-10-2011 01:00 AM)Amaru Zion Wrote: my two main issues with stalin:
he implemented a style of imperialism, conquering new territories
he was too ambitious, russia is too large geographically and too diverse culturally to successfully be a socialist/communist pioneer

your serious ''too diverse culturally to successfully be a socialist/communist pioneer'' that is the most hilarous thing ive heard on this forum since the divine penis argument

is that an insult or am i missing something? if thats an insult, this isnt a comeback; im genuinely confused. and a divine penis sounds pretty funny

thanks? lol

and vegan marxist i believe anything about stalin will forever be tarnished by his perceived legacy. im still studying the topic tho, youre much more knowledgeable about this. im just saying that every article ive read about him seems biased. could you point me to an authoritative book? ive already ordered some stalin books recommended here but im always happy to learn

**shakur420** · 05-10-2011, 03:21 AM

(05-10-2011 02:31 AM)The Vegan Marxist Wrote: I still call bullshit on your "left", "right" deviations. Every Marxist is a leftist. Just not the left you want to stand with. Rightist "marxists" are very idealist and stick to old orders that committed errors (which were done under sometimes repressive measures). Whereas, those of us on the left wish to update Marxism as conditions continue to change and fix whatever errors were committed in the past.

You recognize that anti-state leftists are left of most marxist-based ideologies, no? You recognize we exist, no?

**The Vegan Marxist** · 05-10-2011, 04:01 AM

(05-10-2011 03:21 AM)shakur420 Wrote: You recognize that anti-state leftists are left of most marxist-based ideologies, no? You recognize we exist, no?

We know you exist, but we don't recognize your belief-system as legitimate. Either way, it doesn't disregard the fact that, whether you may claim to be more leftist than us Marxists, that doesn't mean we're not leftists.

**Asshole** · 05-10-2011, 04:06 AM

left-right comes from the french revolution and is really no longer applicable

**shakur420** · 05-10-2011, 04:24 AM

(05-10-2011 04:01 AM)The Vegan Marxist Wrote: ...doesn't mean we're not leftists.

It's not like I'm calling you a Republican or something, lol. Simply that there are totalitarian (right) and democratic (left) leanings among Socialists. All manifestations of Marxism being of the former. You've delegitimized your own beliefs by proving people like Bakunin correct - once power is vested into an elite governing party, it will only strengthen, not "whither away". Democratic forms of Socialism have succeeded in actual practice, they are not limited to rhetoric. You know the examples.

**The Vegan Marxist** · 05-10-2011, 04:29 AM

(05-10-2011 04:24 AM)shakur420 Wrote: It's not like I'm calling you a Republican or something, lol. Simply that there are totalitarian (right) and democratic (left) leanings among Socialists. All manifestations of Marxism being of the former. You've delegitimized your own beliefs by proving people like Bakunin correct - once power is vested into an elite governing party, it will only strengthen, not "whither away". Democratic forms of Socialism have succeeded in actual practice, they are not limited to rhetoric. You know the examples.

haha, More like you taking people's own words out of context and not even understanding terms like the DotP. Though, I won't continue on this never ending diatribe of yours. Those who continue to call Marxists "totalitarians" are that of the same anarchists, trots, and khrushchevites who get by through distortions of one's ideology.

**Asshole** · (This post was last modified: 05-10-2011 05:07 AM by Asshole.)

i disagree. marxism is really broad. if you are a socialist/communist, youre a marxist. how you define and accomplish those terms are variations, like marxism-leninism. he just laid down the basics, which need to be revised because of neo imperalism/colonialism and the technological revolution. probably everyone here is a marxist.

a little too combative vegan marxist, but i agree

**Killuminati** · 05-10-2011, 07:12 AM

For the original poster, here's a video that explains the basics of Communism.

**Asshole** · 05-10-2011, 07:26 PM

^a little biased, but ok

**shakur420** · 05-10-2011, 07:52 PM

Yeah, the video is definitely a little distorted. Capitalism is much more anti-democratic than any version of Marxist-Leninism. He explained it himself, when he described the inequality of the distribution of wealth. He seems to think that laborers gaining slightly better wages over hundreds of years (which in itself is arguable) means that there is better distribution. lol. He obviously hasn't looked at the distribution of wealth around the world, or in the United States.

He's also confusing the word Communism. He explains, quite accurately, that Communism is supposed to be the endgame, the point that no one has reached, where the state will "whither away". Under Marx theory, all these "communist" states are actually socialist states, the interim period between Capitalism and Communism. None of them are Communist, in that sense. It's hard to understand why the guy wouldn't describe it as such. The U.S. is waaaay too close to the democratic side of his little graph to be considered realistic. lol, as if enormous amounts of concentrated wealth don't destroy almost every aspect of whatever democracy there is in a republic. lol

I do like the way he broke down Marx and Lenin's contribution to Communist theory/practice, though.