hello hahaha

[bostonmarxist]

i am a communist i like long walks on the beachs romantic dinners and smashing capitalism.capitalism is the worst system of government in the world b/c it supports slavery. throw down the chains of oppression and revolt against the burgeoisie

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE !!!

[bostonmarxist]

hi i would like to sign up for that hate mail now...

[comrade]

i am a communist i like long walks on the beachs romantic dinners and smashing capitalism.capitalism is the worst system of government in the world b/c it supports slavery. throw down the chains of oppression and revolt against the burgeoisie

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE !!!

Welcome Mr Communist.

I enjoy such recreational activities as:

Proletarian control over the means of production
Class warfare and the colour RED
Anti - Capitalist action
Philosophical pursuits - Of a Communist nature

And finally classical music.

[bostonmarxist]

well hello you know www.soviet-empire.com/ussr is a much more active than this and its about communism just tell them i sent you!

[comrade]

well hello you know www.soviet-empire.com/ussr is a much more active than this and its about communism just tell them i sent you!

I have visited Soviet empire before It's split amongst a few knowledgeable people and those with no conception of class analysis.

Among other things I find such forums very distasteful:

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
People's Republic of China
Warsaw Pact States
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Democratic People's Republic of Korea

I'm not one who accepts Leninism (and it's adherent countries) as a valid revolutionary model I know that's going to put me at odds with the more dubious members of Soviet Empire.

Your welcome to visit us at:

www.rebelforums.org/forum/index.php?s=5d828d414762da688900e08191deb019&

If your interested in literature you may wish to visit Comrade Redstars site found here:

rs2k.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php

[bostonmarxist]

why dont you like leninism if its the same as marxism?lenin was a brave revolutionary and i believe in his ability to make a classless society!

[comrade]

why dont you like leninism if its the same as marxism?lenin was a brave revolutionary and i believe in his ability to make a classless society!

Laughs, Hardly I wasnt even going to respond however this premise sparks an irresistible urge in me to refute it.

According to Leninist analysis the working class needs an elite (vangaurd) to rule them for their own good - until such a time as they determine the working class can govern themselves.

Marxism on the other hand holds the working class is fit to rule itself from the very beginning and MUST do that.

The Leninists have convinced small portions of the working class that they should be content with a party despotism instead of the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx and Engels for that matter have repeatedly dismissed the efforts of "small groups" (vangaurds if you will) that insist on doing what the proletarian can and should do for themselves.

The revolution of 1917 was nothing but a bourgeois social revolution.

The elite of feudal Russia stole the wealth of its citizens Lenin in turn stole the wealth of the feudal rulers do you see what I am saying?

All that was accomplished was the replacement of one elite by another.

History is made by the masses NOT the minority this is one of the fundamental principles of Marxist historical materialism (which lenin completely ignored).

As he so often ignored Marxism - he didnt even follow the revolutionary model to building Communism.

Feudal society then CAPITALISM the socialism and finally COMMUNISM.

[leninsbane]

History is made by the masses NOT the minority this is one of the fundamental principles of Marxist historical materialism (which lenin completely ignored).

How confident are you in this as a general principle? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to say history should be made up by the masses. Because if you truly stand by the statement, you'll see that even a cursory glance at history shows that sometimes its made by the masses, sometimes by small groups, sometimes by individuals.

Indeed, since Lenin's coup was executed by a minority, it proves that the masses don't always move history and Historical Materialism is a farce.

The Leninists have convinced small portions of the working class that they should be content with a party despotism instead of the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat.

I take it you think a Marxist Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the opposite of a party despotism. This despite the fact that Marx explicitly promised despotic inroads on the right to property in the Manifesto. Or the plank that urges the confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Or the construction of "workers armies" , assumably with their own officers and top down authority. Or a progressive income tax, etc.

Even Mikhail Bakunin observed that a Marxist sociaety would resemble a barracks, and he didnt even have Lenin as an example.

Feudal society then CAPITALISM the socialism and finally COMMUNISM.

I want you to focus on the "socialism" part. First of all, this was not an explicit Marxist formulation of the progress of history, that stage was added by Stalin no less. But it is accurate of what marx thought.

Do you know what Marx though of the stage immediately following the revolution? He called it Raw Communism. He bluntly forsaw it as a hell on earth. Look for it in the Paris Manuscripts. He fully knew that a revolution would lead to a society of despotism where everyone became public property as the property principal would be applied universally. he even correctly forsaw that such a condition would be a society rules by envy, where everyone would be levelled.

Do you know what the solutions was? How we will evolve from this transitional hell to a commie Utopia?

Dont ask Marx, because you can read his crap from beginning to end and there is no explanation. He simply says a twist of the dialectic will turn the hell into paradise.

These are the words of a con artist, he conned Lenin, and he conned you.

Laughs, Hardly I wasnt even going to respond however this premise sparks an irresistible urge in me to refute it

Your "refutation" is identical to that of any religious fanatic. You try to root out heretics by quoting "scripture".

[comrade]

How confident are you in this as a general principle? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to say history should be made up by the masses. Because if you truly stand by the statement, you'll see that even a cursory glance at history shows that sometimes its made by the masses, sometimes by small groups, sometimes by individuals.

At a glance we can see that 90% of the time history is made without the support of the masses it will never gain any semblance of stability.

Indeed, since Lenin's coup was executed by a minority, it proves that the masses don't always move history and Historical Materialism is a farce.

Actually if anything it proves that historical materialism is correct minority's will always fail - its just a matter of when.

I take it you think a Marxist Dictatorship of the Proletariat is the opposite of a party despotism. This despite the fact that Marx explicitly promised despotic inroads on the right to property in the Manifesto.

I was referring of course to the Marxist analysis that revolutions can and should be waged by the working class as a whole lest we see a despotic elite replace the old.

In regards to property I do not and never have considered that despotic you will have property you just wont own it.

Or the plank that urges the confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Or the construction of "workers armies" , assumably with their own officers and top down authority. Or a progressive income tax, etc.

Karl Marx was a man of the 19th century therefore it is not unreasonable to assume he suffered from a few dogmatic views of the time.

The leadership of the British Empire was active in advocating slavery - in the present day it would be completely ridiculous and unreasonable for them to suffer from the dogmatic views of a past society

As for the construction of workers armies - I really dont see a problem.

The progressive income tax is a characteristic of the Socialist stage of development - which would be used as a means to curb class division.

Even Mikhail Bakunin observed that a Marxist sociaety would resemble a barracks, and he didnt even have Lenin as an example.

You really expect me to take an anarchist seriously *laughs* Marx himself resented barracks socialism - as for example the German social democratic party of the early 20th century.

I want you to focus on the "socialism" part. First of all, this was not an explicit Marxist formulation of the progress of history, that stage was added by Stalin no less. But it is accurate of what marx thought.

Your half right while Marx did not ever in any of his works refer to a socialist stage he did refer to both a lower and higher stage of Communism.

While that does not actively imply Socialism it does make it clear that progression towards Communism will not be singular and all at once.

Do you know what Marx though of the stage immediately following the revolution? He called it Raw Communism. He bluntly forsaw it as a hell on earth. Look for it in the Paris Manuscripts. He fully knew that a revolution would lead to a society of despotism where everyone became public property as the property principal would be applied universally. he even correctly forsaw that such a condition would be a society rules by envy, where everyone would be levelled.

*Laughs*

Read up on the Paris Commune.

Do you know what the solutions was? How we will evolve from this transitional hell to a commie Utopia?

Dont ask Marx, because you can read his crap from beginning to end and there is no explanation. He simply says a twist of the dialectic will turn the hell into paradise.

Karl Marx never left us with an accurate model of revolutionary class consciousness is that his fault?

No - One cannot be expected to be able to see into the future or for that matter provide a model for society that has never been tried.

Lets take capitalism for instance all the advanced capitalist countries would never follow pure capitalism it's an impossibility at best - the model is flawed.

These are the words of a con artist, he conned Lenin

lenin was never conned he developed his own failed model based on a failed class analysis

Peasant revolutions will always fail as Marx himself stated.

and he conned you

Once again *Laughs*.

Your "refutation" is identical to that of any religious fanatic. You try to root out heretics by quoting "scripture"

I have done no such thing I simply pointed out that waht Marx predicted would happen if a backward agrarian primary peasant community tried their hand at revolutionary Communism - failure.

[leninsbane]

At a glance we can see that 90% of the time history is made without the support of the masses it will never gain any semblance of stability.

Again, maybe, maybe not. We're talking about what moves history. Sometimes it's the masses, sometimes not. now I see you qualify you orignal point by adding "90% of the time". Where to they post these figures.

Actually if anything it proves that historical materialism is correct minority's will always fail - its just a matter of when.

See above. And anyway, your insistence on the primacy of the majority is not the essential characteristic of Historical Materialism. Lenin's minority succeeded right up until the nineties. It was'nt the will of the masses, but economics that did them in. You like to think in broad strokes.

I was referring of course to the Marxist analysis that revolutions can and should be waged by the working class as a whole lest we see a despotic elite replace the old.

In regards to property I do not and never have considered that despotic you will have property you just wont own it.

Not quite. Marx believed the working class as a whole should carry out the leg work. The movement would be controlled and guided by bourgeoise intellectuals like him. Observe the fued between him and William Weitling. He was angry that weitling was trying to agitate without Marx's doctrine.

Yet another example that makes a farce of Historical Materialism. The theory could not explain Marx himself. Class consciousness was supposed to inevitably come about from the "material productive forces", whatever those are. Yet here was Marx, a bourgeouise, devising a revolutionary theory of the working class.

Marx himself admitted that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be worse than the nold order, but only transitorily. if we're patient and wait 500 years, we will reach paradise where class distinctions are obliterated and the antagonism between man and nature blah blah...

I know you never SAID you consider property despotic. read what I said, Marx explicitly advocated, and admitted in the paragrahphs before the 10 planks of the manifesto, that there will be despotic inroads on property.

Your half right while Marx did not ever in any of his works refer to a socialist stage he did refer to both a lower and higher stage of Communism.

While that does not actively imply Socialism it does make it clear that progression towards Communism will not be singular and all at once.

No I'm not half right. You just said what I said. I never denied that he believed the move to communism will be gradual.

The progressive income tax is a characteristic of the Socialist stage of development - which would be used as a means to curb class division.

Thats right. If everybody is expropriated equally, everyone will be equally shabby. No class division there. OOOh please can I have some?

You really expect me to take an anarchist seriously *laughs* Marx himself resented barracks socialism - as for example the German social democratic party of the early 20th century.

Why not? Bakunin's words were alot more prophetic than Marx's. Being an anarchist does not make him constitutionally unfit to make an accurate observation. You Marxists have got to let go of this "class consciousness", "false consciousness" drivel.

Marx was not coherent. Thats why you can point to his support of the social democrats, and you can also find a barrage of proof that he had no respect for individual freedom. Read the 10 planks of the Manifesto and then tell be how he did not bel;ieve in Barracks socialism.

*Laughs*

Read up on the Paris Commune.

This tract is the only piece of Marx that marxists always point to when they try to paint him as a freedom fighter. Address the Paris manuscripts and maybe we'll talk about his lip service in the Brumaire

Karl Marx never left us with an accurate model of revolutionary class consciousness is that his fault?

No - One cannot be expected to be able to see into the future or for that matter provide a model for society that has never been tried.

Lets take capitalism for instance all the advanced capitalist countries would never follow pure capitalism it's an impossibility at best - the model is flawed.

YES! It is his fault. Because when you pose as a social theoretician who repeatedly calls for the destruction of existing society through violent revolution, you have the intellectual obligation to explian what comes next, how, and why. Your other examples are irrelevant.

lenin was never conned he developed his own failed model based on a failed class analysis

Peasant revolutions will always fail as Marx himself stated.

Lenin was conned because he thought that marxism as a theory was manifestly true, no matter how he tried to modify it.

Once again *Laughs*.

;D see above.

I have done no such thing I simply pointed out that waht Marx predicted would happen if a backward agrarian primary peasant community tried their hand at revolutionary Communism - failure.

So he can predict the outcomes of peasant's actions, yet not predict how communism will come about and be implemented. Was he a savant?

[comrade]

Again, maybe, maybe not. We're talking about what moves history. Sometimes it's the masses, sometimes not.

History is always made by the masses - at least in the sense of any significant contribution.

now I see you qualify you orignal point by adding "90% of the time". Where to they post these figures.

I actually believe it's 100% of the time I used 90% for argument sake - If I wished I could tread through history and conclusively prove that history is made by the masses however I really dont have the time.

And anyway, your insistence on the primacy of the majority is not the essential characteristic of Historical Materialism.

It's actually a focal point of the whole theory.

Lenin's minority succeeded right up until the nineties. It was'nt the will of the masses, but economics that did them in. You like to think in broad strokes.

Really?

Then I assume you have not taken into account the August 1991 coup.

Not quite. Marx believed the working class as a whole should carry out the leg work. The movement would be controlled and guided by bourgeoise intellectuals like him.

Actually you are wrong (and consequently describing the leninist vangaurd).

The theory could not explain Marx himself. Class consciousness was supposed to inevitably come about from the "material productive forces", whatever those are.

Correct.

Yet here was Marx, a bourgeouise, devising a revolutionary theory of the working class.

And?

Karl Marx spent a great deal of time as a member of the working class as well

Marx himself admitted that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be worse than the nold order, but only transitorily. if we're patient and wait 500 years, we will reach paradise where class distinctions are obliterated and the antagonism between man and nature blah blah...

I highly doubt your credibility on this matter as Marx never laid out a timeline for the formation of a Communist society.

I know you never SAID you consider property despotic. read what I said, Marx explicitly advocated, and admitted in the paragrahphs before the 10 planks of the manifesto, that there will be despotic inroads on property.

Look at the time and society in which Marx was living - Germany at that time was ruled almost as aristocratically as feudal Russia communal property at that time was considered despotic.

Community property that which is owned by the people did not occur in any significant degree and was even less so in the land of the Czar.

Despotic then and in that society - yes

Is it so today?

Thats right. If everybody is expropriated equally, everyone will be equally shabby. No class division there. OOOh please can I have some?

Actually it would be the bourgeois and petty bourgeois that would face heavy taxation thus the entire working class would be brought up to a standard more suitable to their class.

Why not? Bakunin's words were alot more prophetic than Marx's. Being an anarchist does not make him constitutionally unfit to make an accurate observation.

It does about Marxism - his interest is in discrediting Marxism for his own political purposes thus it cannot be denied that his credibility is questionable.

Besides even if it were not an anarchist revolution - *Laughs* a society that goes immediately from a state to no state is bound to fail.

YES! It is his fault. Because when you pose as a social theoretician who repeatedly calls for the destruction of existing society through violent revolution, you have the intellectual obligation to explian what comes next, how, and why. Your other examples are irrelevant.

Lenin was conned because he thought that marxism as a theory was manifestly true, no matter how he tried to modify it

Marxism as a theory is true but when you modify it then it ceases to become Marxism it becomes something else.

So he can predict the outcomes of peasant's actions, yet not predict how communism will come about and be implemented.

Marx had no basis for analysing Communism - as no such society has existed however the Peasantry had a long and oppressed history (for which Marx could accurately theorize about).

[leninsbane]

History is always made by the masses - at least in the sense of any significant contribution

What part did the masses play in the invention of the light bulb?

I actually believe it's 100% of the time I used 90% for argument sake - If I wished I could tread through history and conclusively prove that history is made by the masses however I really dont have the time.

If you dont have the time, dont make the statement. History is necessarily the history of humans, as it is meaningless without them. But that is on the macro level. This principal does not specify whether it involves the majority, minority, or one.

It's actually a focal point of the whole theory.

Really? Then you better have the time for this. Re-read the German Ideology and then tell me that the summation of the theory is that the masses move history, and not in the causes of development found in the specific mode of production in a given stage of development. If by "masses" you mean all of humanity, then you are correct. But you dont mean that so you're not.

Really?

Then I assume you have not taken into account the August 1991 coup.

Lets take a look at the 1991 coup. The masses were able to oppose it onjly because Gorbachev laid the groundwork through Prerestroika, and a radical shift in the way the Red Army was organized. In short, they were able to oppose it because of a top down change. Not because they collectively forced the change or made the conditions possible. Again Gorby was forced to introduce reforms becaause of the deisaster that central planning brought. And if you ask me, the coup was staged. But I'll do you the courtesy of not permitting conspiracy theories on my replies.

Actually you are wrong (and consequently describing the leninist vangaurd).

No, I'm right. The Leninist Vanguard was one of the things he had in common with Marx. Observe the way Marx himself organized the International. Observe the arguments he got into with people like Weitling who wanted a more de-centralized approach. Marx provided the doctrine, therefore he would call the shots. The proles were just fodder.

And?

Karl Marx spent a great deal of time as a member of the working class as well

NEVER. There is not even any evidence that he set foot in a factory. If there is, post it here. He spent long periods being unemployed and was the beneficiary of Engels' constant handouts. (another so-called bourgeois proletariat.) He also inherited some of his father's money, and was partly subsidized by his uncle Philips who had the famous tool company. in the london museum today, you can see a check made out to Marx by Baron Lionel Rothschild. If you want to begin proving your point, you will have to show how the material conditions of Marx's class as a proletariat made his threory inevitable. Which is absurd even to try.

I highly doubt your credibility on this matter as Marx never laid out a timeline for the formation of a Communist society.

My credibility is more intact than your willingness to read carefully. I was the one who declared he left us with no plan, therefore no timeline. The Paris mannuscripts were discovered in the 20th century and were revalations of his personal thoughts on the matter. He did not leave a "timeline", only his insistence that Raw Communism would follow the revolution. in his later writings, he doesnt say it, but "Raw Communism" became the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Look at the time and society in which Marx was living - Germany at that time was ruled almost as aristocratically as feudal Russia communal property at that time was considered despotic.

Community property that which is owned by the people did not occur in any significant degree and was even less so in the land of the Czar.

Despotic then and in that society - yes

Is it so today?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was in England or France when he wrote it. And property conditions were different in England at the time. The tract said property will be expropriated and that it wouold be despotic. Period. today, just as then, the poorest not just the rich, would suffer from this expropriation. This falsifies your proposition that Marx and the Soviets were opposites in their approach.

Actually it would be the bourgeois and petty bourgeois that would face heavy taxation thus the entire working class would be brought up to a standard more suitable to their class.

;D You beleive this. Astounding.

It does about Marxism - his interest is in discrediting Marxism for his own political purposes thus it cannot be denied that his credibility is questionable.

Besides even if it were not an anarchist revolution - *Laughs* a society that goes immediately from a state to no state is bound to fail.

It will indeed fail. That is completely irrelevant to the fact that Bakunin made his observations based on the writings of Marx, and its basic principles. Sure enough, every implementaion of Marxism has been a barracks.

Marx's theory should have been produced by a prole. It was'nt, so the theory failed.

Marxism as a theory is true but when you modify it then it ceases to become Marxism it becomes something else.

Thats your problem. Today we have Marxists believing in a limited free market. Only the most pitiful anachronistic Marxists still believe in the Labor Theory of Value. And just as few still have the nerve to argue about the Law of the Immiseration of the worker. What we have now are analytical Marxists who call themselves such after they gutted the whole theory. Maybe, just maybe, the theory cannot be held intact because its...lousy.

Marx had no basis for analysing Communism - as no such society has existed however the Peasantry had a long and oppressed history (for which Marx could accurately theorize about).

Thats no excuse. He called for the destruction of sociaety and violent revolution to achieve a system he could not explain. We know he was unable to map it out, in that case he should not have been calling for the violent overthrow of society until he was able to map it out. When pressed on the issue, he evaded it by throwing up his hands and saying he didnt want to engage in fantasy.