Just got my books on Marxism and other political readings. - General

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32847440]They are fictional stories, not political documents.[/QUOTE] I realize that but they are still relate to politics.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;32846396]What, no Leviathan? No political literature collection is complete without Hobbes' masterpiece.[/QUOTE] I really really don't like Hobbes. :( After we've finished with Machiavelli in political philosophy we're on to him. It's all about Mills' On Liberty.

why should we give a shit, seriously? i didn't start a thread to show what an interesting read this book was: [img]http://www.diet-blog.com/upload/image/hungry%20caterpillar.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=DiBBs27;32847302]mein kampf! Holy crap you're allowed to sell that book? [/QUOTE] It would be somewhat ironic if it was decided to censor it. If anything it's availability has reduced it an almost laughable state. [QUOTE=Kopimi;32847298]what Do I really need to provide justification for the fact that I'm not compelled to donate my money to people? [/QUOTE] You don't need to provide justification for not giving money to others but you can't argue that people who need it more [b]should[/b] get it, even if you don't commit to giving it yourself. Society is based on rights and by extension responsibilities, you have the right to food but you also have the responsibility to do what you can to prevent other people from going hungry. If you don't like that concept you should truly work for yourself, grow/prepare your own food, build your own house. But until then you rely on others for your well-being just as much as they rely on you for whatever you produce so you can't just shirk your responsibilities towards them. [QUOTE=Kopimi;32847298]what My point was that it's not the government's business to tell you that you need to be giving people charity, and making you do it by force. [/QUOTE] Then what, by your definition is the government's business? Unless it strives to provide all with a better quality of life why should it even exist? Governments exist primarily to force people to do things they don't want to or stop them from doing things they otherwise would, that's their whole schtick.

Communism does not equal Marxism.

I have a copy of Mien Kampf somewhere, only read a bit of it. All the Marxist shiz is covered nicely by my copy of The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (another great buy)

[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;32849139]It would be somewhat ironic if it was decided to censor it. If anything it's availability has reduced it an almost laughable state. You don't need to provide justification for not giving money to others but you can't argue that people who need it more [b]should[/b] get it, even if you don't commit to giving it yourself. Society is based on rights and by extension responsibilities, you have the right to food but you also have the responsibility to do what you can to prevent other people from going hungry. If you don't like that concept you should truly work for yourself, grow/prepare your own food, build your own house. But until then you rely on others for your well-being just as much as they rely on you for whatever you produce so you can't just shirk your responsibilities towards them. Then what, by your definition is the government's business? Unless it strives to provide all with a better quality of life why should it even exist? Governments exist primarily to force people to do things they don't want to or stop them from doing things they otherwise would, that's their whole schtick.[/QUOTE] I don't have a right to food, and there's a big difference between not participating in redistribution of wealth and bartering, your comparison is more than stupid. The government does a lot to provide a better standard of living for people, you can't just say that just because they're not redistributing the income of all their citizens they're not providing a better standard of living. Giving me free food and a home would increase my standard of living, but the fact that they aren't doing that doesn't invalidate everything else they do for me. If you're going to try arguing at least come up with comparisons and points that aren't absolutely retarded

It's all pretty interesting. Communism as a whole is a really bad joke though. The failed result of a revolution against greed. Ironically greed is what killed communism. Sadly i can't read books very well (self diagnosed mild ADD) but wiki articles and documentaries serve me well. If you think communism is interesting, you should see ww2 facism. So much to find out i don't even know where to start.

Communism!

How much were these? I want to get them as well.

You should leave all of them out on the table next time you invite some friends over. If they ask about them, accuse them of being capitalist pigs.

[QUOTE=GunFox;32846430]His ideas spawned Marxism, but they didn't interpret what he said correctly. Marx lived long enough to see the rise of Marxism and pointed out that he wasn't a Marxist. [editline]18th October 2011[/editline] He was actually a socialist. He believed that stateless communism would naturally follow socialism after many years, but that SOCIALISM was the proper way to go at the time. He ran things like the communist party, but they really shared much more in common with socialism. Forcing stateless communism or attempting to pursue stateless communism as a direct goal was a ridiculous idea to him. Stateless communism was about freedom of the people and equality and has virtually nothing in common with what we call communism today. He also believed that capitalism would naturally gravitate slowly towards socialism. As we have seen with Europe and, to a slightly lesser extent, the United States, his theory is proving to be correct. Whether that will, in hundreds of years down the line, produce a stateless communist society, I do not know.[/QUOTE] Alright, I misunderstood you. I believed you were saying that he did not believe in his own philosophy/politics, which is what I was talking about. You are absolutely right, though. [editline]18th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;32846712]What about people who want to excel? Communism seems like a cute idea but I see no way for it to be safely and fairly enforced. I also don't see why everyone should be equal. Humans aren't equal. Some people are lazy and untalented, some people are hard working and inventive. I don't see why my efforts of hard work and all the stress I go through should work in the benefit of someone who just wants to sit around all day. If I wanted to share my wealth I'd contribute to charity. Not to mention it's pretty tough to take most "communists" seriously nowadays considering how much of a fashion statement being a socialist or communist is.[/QUOTE] The idea is that we are all equally capable of the same, and that no person should be seen as unequal until they choose to do so. See, you don't understand that the equality aspect of communism and socialism is that no person should be neglected liberties and rights unless they do not contribute to society. You are equal until you make yourself unequal. There is nowhere in Marxist literature that you should find someone arguing that all people are always equal always. Terry Eagleton has a great response to this in his book Why Marx Was Right, which was a good read, even if I disagree somewhat with some of his interpretations of Marxism and he tended to ramble on and either miss the point or simply bury the point under a mountain of only partially relevant information. The equality in socialism is the same kind of equality people idolize in modern America or Europe-regardless of race, creed, color, sex, gender, etc, all people are equal under the eyes of the law. People who purposefully neglect their social and civil duty or oppose acting in society will themselves be neglected of their wants (but not their needs), until the point in which the spoils of the system are so great that we can afford to support them even if they do neglect. However, I don't think you'll understand this in total because your last statement about charities there tells me you're fiscally conservative and believe that the wealth that is 'yours' should be 'yours' and you should distribute 'your' wealth how you see fit, which is not the view of Marxism or socialism. But the fashion statement point is an issue. I'm rather timid to get involved in my university's Trotskyist organization for two reasons- one being I am not a Trotskyist, even though they seem to take kindly to my political beliefs, and the other is that there will no doubt be some of those who are socialists because it's 'edgy and cool', and I'm not sure how many of the organization that will be.

Kopimi, I'm not saying that Equality IS the best route, I'm saying that for communism to work, we'd need to have people BELIEVE it is. [editline]18th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32850965'] But the fashion statement point is an issue. I'm rather timid to get involved in my university's Trotskyist organization for two reasons- one being I am not a Trotskyist, even though they seem to take kindly to my political beliefs, and the other is that there will no doubt be some of those who are socialists because it's 'edgy and cool', and I'm not sure how many of the organization that will be.[/QUOTE] A Trotskyist organization? That's pretty damn cool actually.

All our marxist activists are power hungry bastards who would sell their mother if they thought it would further their political career

So as it turns out, coming up with raps for the rap battle thread while reading Das Kapital is a really fucking bad idea.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;32849791]I don't have a right to food, and there's a big difference between not participating in redistribution of wealth and bartering, your comparison is more than stupid. The government does a lot to provide a better standard of living for people, you can't just say that just because they're not redistributing the income of all their citizens they're not providing a better standard of living. Giving me free food and a home would increase my standard of living, but the fact that they aren't doing that doesn't invalidate everything else they do for me. If you're going to try arguing at least come up with comparisons and points that aren't absolutely retarded[/QUOTE] [B]A:[/B] You clearly believe in a right to property, you can't seriously be saying the right to life, and the resources necessary to maintain life (food, clean water, etc.) doesn't supersede the right to property? [B]B:[/B] What help would an ideal government give to those without food or shelter? If none as your above point suggests, any other help would be absurd, it's like giving a person with no power a television. If a government can't assist in such basic things as food and shelter then what need is there for a government? There is none. [B]C:[/B] We can throw around insults all day but you still haven't challenged my points. Regardless, this is getting off-topic. So let's leave it at that.

[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;32838565]May I ask why is most of FP obsessed with Communism?[/QUOTE] Even though it's the most perverse political and economical system ever made.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;32858409]Even though it's the most perverse political and economical system ever made.[/QUOTE] ...please explain what communism means to you?

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;32853993] A Trotskyist organization? That's pretty damn cool actually.[/QUOTE] The ISSE- International Students for Social Equality. Three other universities in the area also have extensions of the group. It's sponsored by the Socialist Equality Party, which runs the World Socialist Website and is a member of the International Committee of the Fourth International. They cater more to socialists, because the only other political leftist organization is College Democrats, which doesn't represent anyone more left than the Democrats. Funny enough there's no Republican group, which is expected considering that my school is the most liberal and progressive place I know of. I got to talking to some of their members when they were passing out fliers. They were having a guest speaker open to anyone who wanted to listen, and I got to talking to one of the guys. Very passionate, in his 50s. He noticed I was reading "The S Word, a short history of an American tradition: Socialism" by Jack Nicholes, who he was familiar with, and we started talking about the book, and FDR vs Obama, and the Democrats, and socialism as it stands today, and he invited me to the speech, but I had to decline because I had class, and also invited me to the organization, saying that I was what they were looking for, but I also declined that offer because I wanted to get used to the whole college thing before I joined and organizations.

Communism so hip

[QUOTE=Contag;32858510]...please explain what communism means to you?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes[/url] That is what communism is to me. And unlike most of you people here, i live in a country that once had a communist regime and it's people is still one way or the other still heavily influenced by it. Most student leaders have ties with the communist party, so i know first hand what being a communist actually means: They're sickeningly intolerant, they're violent, reckless and massively ambitious. Forget trying to reach a consensus with them, they're completely open to use active aggression (as in riots, sieges even civil war) until they get everything they ask for for and nothing less, not if it's beneficial or even achievable. In my experience, communists ARE the scum of mankind. Doesn't matter what their ideologies or textbooks say, all that matters is what they do in practice.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;32860333][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes[/url] That is what communism is to me. And unlike most of you people here, i live in a country that once had a communist regime and it's people is still one way or the other still heavily influenced by it. Most student leaders have ties with the communist party, so i know first hand what being a communist actually means: They're sickeningly intolerant, they're violent, reckless and massively ambitious. Forget trying to reach a consensus with them, they're completely open to use active aggression (as in riots, sieges even civil war) until they get everything they ask for for and nothing less, not if it's beneficial or even achievable. In my experience, communists ARE the scum of mankind. Doesn't matter what their ideologies or textbooks say, all that matters is what they do in practice.[/QUOTE] "Communism... is Man's greatest enemy in his climb from the swamp to the stars"

[QUOTE=Black Milano;32860333][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes[/url] That is what communism is to me. And unlike most of you people here, i live in a country that once had a communist regime and it's people is still one way or the other still heavily influenced by it. Most student leaders have ties with the communist party, so i know first hand what being a communist actually means: They're sickeningly intolerant, they're violent, reckless and massively ambitious. Forget trying to reach a consensus with them, they're completely open to use active aggression (as in riots, sieges even civil war) until they get everything they ask for for and nothing less, not if it's beneficial or even achievable. In my experience, communists ARE the scum of mankind. Doesn't matter what their ideologies or textbooks say, all that matters is what they do in practice.[/QUOTE] Except you're apparently incapable of self-research or self-thought and have been spoon-fed Stalinism and Leninist-Marxism all your life if you believe all communism is like that. It's not. In fact, Stlainism was more Revolutionary Fascism than Marxism, and Maoism is a fucking joke of an ideology no matter what. If you read anything Mao wrote beyond his political writings, you can see how he was a power-hungry fascist who only wanted control and got it under the guise of a populist movement. Stalin was more or less the same way. These two movements pretty much defined 'communism', as they were the only examples in power that people had, and so only people with similar goals as the two power-hungry ideologies had any chance of getting aid from them and being brought to power. Only people who know communism and socialism as these movements don't know that this was part of Right Communism, which was a bastardization of Marxism and socialism. Before the October 1917 revolution in Russia, there were two sides interpreting Marx's work differently fighting for control of the socialist ideology as a whole, and until that October revolution, the Leftists were winning. Even through WWII, pretty much until the death of Trotsky, leftist communists still played a role in world politics, with their last great contribution coming from the Spanish Civil War. I wrote a bit about this in another thread: [quote]'Real communism' usually refers to the leftist view of communism. There were initially two camps: Left and Right communism. The majority were Left communists- liberal, progressive socialists with an emphasis on democracy and personal freedom. Some Right factions, such as the Bolsheviks, believed that personal freedom and democracy could be temporarily skipped over, if at all given, in support of an integrated culture and peoples. Once the Right Bolsheviks took control in Russia, they were the only example of socialism in the world. Because of their power, they in turn were able to aid and help bring into power other Right communists, such as Mao, Castro, etc. Left communism was overall ignored as their revolutions failed, or were sabotaged by the growing Right communist tendencies. For instance, the 1918 German Revolution and Hungarian Soviet Republic (which was mostly democratic and guaranteed basic rights). The fundamental difference between the two groups was that one saw the failings of the idolized Paris Commune as a problem of outside forces (hence the internationalist tenancies of the Left), and the other believed it to be that there was too much liberty, and too little governmental power/control (hence the authoritarian and later totalitarian positions). This is reflected in the naming of the split between Trotsky and Stalin, with the more liberal democrats on the Left Opposition, and the more authoritarian leaders in the Right Opposition. When people say 'Real Communism', they usually refer to the Left communism (which differs from modern Left Communism). The reason for this is because the West never was exposed to a ruling Right communism. The West has a strong personal-liberty stance, and values independence and freedom, as opposed to Eastern societies like India and China, where there's less influence on independence, and a strong cultural push for societal wellbeing over the individual.[/quote] It's really unfortunate and damaging that Stalinism and MLism ruined the name of socialism and communism. I'm truly sorry that your nation was ravaged by MLists and that it still holds as the primary ideology, but this is not socialism or communism. This is exploitation of a populist movement. If you want beneficial socialism in practice, read up on the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, somewhat about the Hungarian Social Republic, the Paris Commune, the Trotskyists and leftist portions of Spain during the Spanish Civil War, and the parts of Germany that were under Sparticist and communist control during their 1918 revolution. It is difficult to discern who was genuine in their writings and who would carry them over when they got into power, as was made clear with Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, but there are beneficial movements by communists that have enacted the good side. Oh, and I'd take those numbers in the mass killings article with a grain of salt- most of them come from The Black Book of Communism and have been shown to be incorrect and exaggerated by the author, an ideology driven anti-communist.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;32860333][b]Most student leaders have ties with the communist party[/b], so i know first hand what being a communist actually means: They're sickeningly intolerant, they're violent, reckless and massively ambitious. Forget trying to reach a consensus with them, they're completely open to use active aggression (as in riots, sieges even civil war) until they get everything they ask for for and nothing less, not if it's beneficial or even achievable. In my experience, communists ARE the scum of mankind. Doesn't matter what their ideologies or textbooks say, all that matters is what they do in practice.[/QUOTE] Wait, what? Do you live in fucking China, or is that some American Tea Party shtick?

[QUOTE=Florence;32860785]Wait, what? Do you live in fucking China, or is that some American Tea Party shtick?[/QUOTE] According to the little flag, he's Chilean, and he's likely referring to his nation's time under the (democratically elected) Socialist Party of Chile and Salvador Allende, which was overthrown by a (likely US-backed) coup by Augusto Pinochet that put in place a military dictatorship that enacted political killings numbering in the thousands, human rights abuses, torture, and of course supreme political power that limited any sort of personal liberty.

Communism in theory =/= communism in practice. Same as capitalism, same as everything else. You have absolutely no idea about what my country has been through and why Pinochet did what he did: we were at the brink of civil war, caused in it's entirety by soviet sympathizers and Allende's pigs. You're a first world citizen who has never faced the reality of social clash, you look at communism the way i look at an econometrics textbook, as some sort of theory and platonical view. Half my family had to escape from the country when Allende rose to power, while the other half suffered from the lack of security, education and sometimes even food brought by the communist regime, all of this while defending their belongings at gunpoint from the revolution. This violence was actually endorsed by the congress itself, which stated that the only way of reaching true socialism was through acts of aggression, killing and forced expropriations. I'm not joking here. Again, the real communist throws molotovs and makes barricades out of traffic lights and street signs when he wants to be heard. That's what I've LIVED.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;32861460]Communism in theory =/= communism in practice. Same as capitalism, same as everything else. You have absolutely no idea about what my country has been through and why Pinochet did what he did. You're a first world citizen who has never faced the reality of social clash, you look at communism the way i look at an econometrics textbook, detached from reality. The real communist throws molotovs and makes barricades out of traffic lights and street signs when he wants to be heard. That's what I've LIVED.[/QUOTE] Way to read a single word I wrote. I made it very clear that there have been instances where communism and socialism from my perspective have worked out, but you are apparently too ignorant to accept that there are two separate communist trends, and you've gotten only the short stick. And you're right, I have not had to deal with social clash in my lifetime. But that doesn't make me any less educated on the subject or theory than anyone else, and doesn't lessen my understanding of things. In fact, it likely makes it clearer to me than to you because I haven't had to live through the social clash and haven't been poisoned by ideology through conflict, indoctrination, and suppression. And yea, revolutionaries take violent action- that is one of the central pillars of communism is revolution. But in my nation, and in the first world, where the theory has had time to be molded to our culture and our societies, and where it is headed by intellectuals and not military brutes, we've moved past the idea violent revolution. So yea, there's violence involved. It's going to happen in second and third world nations where that's the only means of being heard, or where ideological rivalry has taken hold. But maybe if you started looking at your textbooks like they are reality, and not like they're detached from it, maybe you'd develop an understanding of the stuff you're reading, and not be so closed minded towards the topic to the point that you're directly ignoring specific examples of what you're saying is impossible. Such is life in ideology.

[QUOTE=Black Milano;32861460]Communism in theory =/= communism in practice. Same as capitalism, same as everything else. You have absolutely no idea about what my country has been through and why Pinochet did what he did: we were at the brink of civil war, caused in it's entirety by soviet sympathizers and Allende's pigs. You're a first world citizen who has never faced the reality of social clash, you look at communism the way i look at an econometrics textbook, as some sort of theory and platonical view. Half my family had to escape from the country when Allende rose to power, while the other half suffered from the lack of security, education and sometimes even food brought by the communist regime, all of this while defending their belongings at gunpoint from the revolution. This violence was actually endorsed by the congress itself, which stated that the only way of reaching true socialism was through acts of aggression, killing and forced expropriations. I'm not joking here. Again, the real communist throws molotovs and makes barricades out of traffic lights and street signs when he wants to be heard. That's what I've LIVED.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's called the Bourgeoisie Revolution, when the citizens mindlessly revolt. That's a pretty basic concept when it comes to Communism and related systems. I mean really, the Manifesto and Das Kapital highlight rather clearly that for the System to be changed, first it must be seized violently.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];32861677']So yea, there's violence involved. It's going to happen in second and third world nations where that's the only means of being heard, or where ideological rivalry has taken hold.[/QUOTE] It's easy to overlook violence when you or your friends aren't the ones being beaten with a stick or hit by a rock. What I'm trying to say is, all the communist theoretical ideas go out of the window when people start fighting under it's flag. Not having lived with it does lessen your understanding of things. What matters is how people take the textbook and theory to reality, and they do it in the bloodiest of ways. FYI I'm majoring in economics, so i sort of know what I'm i talking about. [editline]19th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=No Party Hats;32862250]I mean really, the Manifesto and Das Kapital highlight rather clearly that for the System to be changed, first it must be seized violently.[/QUOTE] Again, violence is easy to justify when you're not the one affected.

I'm not saying violence is good, I'm saying it's pretty much unavoidable. Maybe you should look into the Manifesto? [editline]19th October 2011[/editline] Stop saying that your country is so bad because Communism is violent at first, we all know how it is, because it's something that's been restated too many times over the years. It's like crying because "My fire was hotter than yours when I touched it". It's expected to be fucking hot. [editline]19th October 2011[/editline] No sorry, it's more like complaining that when you touched the fire, it was hot, but we wouldn't understand because we didn't touch it ourselves. [editline]19th October 2011[/editline] Also, pertaining to your earlier post, so you're saying a total dictator ship or a Facist regime is better than Communism? Interesting outlook.