Just got my books on Marxism and other political readings.
103 replies, posted
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;32862325]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]
Also, pertaining to your earlier post, so you're saying a total dictator ship or a Facist regime is better than Communism? Interesting outlook.[/QUOTE]
1.) A political and economical system that relies on violence against it's [B]own[/B] citizens for implementation is fundamentally flawed. I'm sorry, but there's no justification for that.
2.) Politics tend to meet at the ends. Communist and fascist regimes have a lot more in common than what you think. And I'm sorry, but i never said such thing as a dictatorship being "good", i only said that it was what had to be done given the circumstances.
Judge my opinion all you want, but bear in mind that neither you or your family was there.
It's not AGAINST the goddamn commoners, which is what communism is about. If you can't understand that, then there's nothing I can tell you. You called Communism THE Scum of Mankind. That's implying they're the worst. Regardless of where you've been or what you've seen, you still don't understand a system that seems have brought you to a Holier than Thou state of mind.
Could you list the links for the books you bought, OP?
Good thing your mailman doesn't know what books you got.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;32863527]It's not AGAINST the goddamn commoners, which is what communism is about. [/QUOTE]
Then who is it against? who suffers the violence that's required to implement it?.
My whole point is that you can't judge something by what it was "meant" to be, you gotta judge it by what it actually IS.
What Marx wrote is simply an idea, a floating theoretical construct. What you and i call communism is that set of ideas (along with others) brought to reality and used as the backbone of an ideology, political party and a way of doing things that endorses certain people's actions.
The "scum" of mankind are these people that try to bring these ideas to life, justifying any means, however violent they may be, in order to feed their ambitions and reach their goals. The problem lies in the gap between idea and realization. That's what I've seen, at least.
[QUOTE=Black Milano;32863155]1.) A political and economical system that relies on violence against it's [B]own[/B] citizens for implementation is fundamentally flawed. I'm sorry, but there's no justification for that.
[/QUOTE]
[B]WELCOME TO THE BASIS OF THE MODERN STATE[/B]
seriously what the christ are you doing
point to one single instance of a state which does use coercive force every single second of it's existence and I will profusely apologize
[quote]FYI I'm majoring in economics, so i sort of know what I'm i talking abo[/quote]
Why would this matter? We're not discussing the economics of socialism, but the socio-political ramification for the population
[QUOTE=Black Milano;32862289]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.[/QUOTE]
Not really. Again, coming back to what I wrote about before, it depends which camp the violence is supporting. The Spanish Civil War is a perfect example. The leftists and Trotskyists acted in a democratic and organized manner, while the Stalinists initiated violence against their own ranks, the other leftists, and even enacted political assassinations of their own allies. The way their organized their territory and their militias shows exactly the difference I'm trying to point out here.
I've given you examples of how socialism not of the LMist or Stlainist variety has been put into practice, showing you that you are wrong when it comes to statements like "communist theoretical ideas go out of the window when people start fighting under it's flag." It's very apparent that you are ignoring much of what I've wrote and don't intend to agree with me regardless of if I explain my point and refute yours.
Oh, and FYI, I'm majoring in political science, so I sort of know what I'm talking about also, since it's apparently important to be majoring in something relevant to the conversation.
I'm the one who made the thread on the books I'm reading that started this fight, we're not banging rocks together here, it's just politics.
In my class we're reading Burke, Constant and some publications made during the Dutch Revolt.
A lot of them offer pretty good stuff
[editline]20th October 2011[/editline]
We're starting on Marx today
marxism has been proven false, btw everyone
conflict theories are still valid but marx's theories on revolution? completely false
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;32874192]marxism has been proven false, btw everyone
conflict theories are still valid but marx's theories on revolution? completely false[/QUOTE]
how are they false?
they're not really provable at the moment
[QUOTE=Contag;32843007]Zizek is nuts
At times he can be brilliant, but he is ultimately nuts[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5yoqjABeBM[/media]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;32874192]marxism has been proven false, btw everyone
conflict theories are still valid but marx's theories on revolution? completely false[/QUOTE]
Well uh, you can't really prove someone's beliefs false. It's like trying to prove an opinion false. I see where you're coming from, though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
