It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Communism Reborn (Communitarian Third Way Makes Debut)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Linux
Im afraid some people on this discussion are mislabeling true communism with Bolshevik/Stalinist totalitarianism. Thats a very unfortunate label to place on communism but years upon years of propaganda are to blame for this. Stalin took advantage and exploited democratic socialism by claiming the Soviet Union's tyranic party was socialist of communist.


That's a fair point Linux.

The problem is that history has shown that what starts as communism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. Communism flies in the face of human nature. It is by definition centrally controlled, undemocratic, and repressive. It's also based on a Marx's/Engel's utterly naive view of economics and social structure. All that "workers owning the means of production" nonsense illustrates a total misunderstanding of how and why any given "production unit" comes into existence.




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Also lets keep in mind that communism, by its actual formulations, demands that a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' be formed, so while actual totalitariansim isn't necessarily part of it, a radical dictatorial government most certainly is. And also keep in mind that Stalin isn' t to blame for every failing of the SU, its not like he went against communist doctrine or anything.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
well the thing is he did, he removed the sovjets for one thing, he he forced the peasens in to the collectives, which was never lenins intension. does the fact that he created a hole new ruling class (the byrocrats) ring a bell?
proleterian bonapartism (stalism) is not at al the same as marxist-leninism.

but as mentioned before and in the first article linked, this does not fall in to the very broad frame of communism.
the only thing it does is to recognise the very true fact that is well known to all politicians, that capitalism does simply not hold in the long run



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Very valid points guys, keep them coming. Just in addition its correct that tyranny was the obvious path for Russia. Stalin and even Lenin believed "the end justifies the means."



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I think we are forgetting about what happened with the Nazis between WWI and WWII. They disbanded, secretly built up their numbers, and were back with a vengance under Hitler's leadership.

I believe it is the same way with communism. All you need is a couple of million followers, and then, BAM- they're back in power. I think the dropping of the iron curtain, and the end of the so-called cold war was just a ploy, or a diversion tactic to try and hide what is really going on.

We need to watch our backs.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Linux
Very valid points guys, keep them coming. Just in addition its correct that tyranny was the obvious path for Russia. Stalin and even Lenin believed "the end justifies the means."


The "ends justifying the means" is one of those oxymoronic paradoxes you find so much of in Marxist literature.. socialists claim their desire is to obtain a more "equitable" and "just" society, yet conversely, their very means of accomplishing this (at least in the Lenin/Stalinist model) was to abolish private property and abolish private control over the ways and means of production..

Most Western thinkers, conversely, would argue that private property is very thing that preserves some notion of "equality" in society. Abolish the ability for private individuals to own property, and you've pretty much created a very unjust, inequitable two-tier fuedal/serf system where either you're part of the State (and you have power) or else you're not (and you don't).

Private property certainly isn't the only thing necessary to preserve liberty and social justice, but it's probably a necessary condition.. the ends almost never justify the means when it comes to socialist thinking, IMHO..



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by timberwulf
I think we are forgetting about what happened with the Nazis between WWI and WWII. They disbanded, secretly built up their numbers, and were back with a vengance under Hitler's leadership.

I believe it is the same way with communism. All you need is a couple of million followers, and then, BAM- they're back in power. I think the dropping of the iron curtain, and the end of the so-called cold war was just a ploy, or a diversion tactic to try and hide what is really going on.

We need to watch our backs.


I agree w/ this wholeheartedly.. "New Lies for Old" by Anatoli Golitsyn discusses this in greater depth..



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by timberwulf
I think we are forgetting about what happened with the Nazis between WWI and WWII.


The nazis didn't exist during wwi and were never disbanded until defeat in WWII



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Could one of you folks give a small tutorial on what the differeng between Communism and Socialism are for me ?

* edit never mind , i should look that up on my own ... any good links ?

[edit on 29-8-2004 by oddtodd]



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by timberwulf
I think we are forgetting about what happened with the Nazis between WWI and WWII.


The nazis didn't exist during wwi and were never disbanded until defeat in WWII


Nygdan is right, if i remember history class correct the Nazi's were no more then a petty political party that were banded together by Hitler's fiery speech. This all happend after WWI



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   
If you have the idealistic view of people being fair, generous and intrinsically hardworking, communism is just the ticket.

If you are cynical and think people tend to be lazy, are selfish and only willing work for themselves, capitalism is the ticket.

Communism doesn't work, capitalism does. What it says is that people are not wonderful like one big happy selfsacrificing family. [You might note that many Christian community values are actually communistic] People are generally selfserving and selfish. This is NOT to say these things are necessarily bad. They are the qualities that have made us a devastatingly sucessful species that we are.

Communism is sort of pie in the sky wishful thinking. Each working according their ability, each being provided for according to their needs.

People have difficulty separating the idea of communism from murderous autocrats such as Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, etc. that attempted to impose an unworkable system on unwilling populations.

Communism is a wonderful picture, with little or no objective substance behind it.
.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Slank, thinking about this and another exchange on the protest thread . . .

I was an anarchist (and anti-christ!--tee hee) years ago.

I think that communism and even more especially anarchy, offer blistering critiques of the status quo.

As you so forcefully pointed out, that is not the same thing as providing a workable alternative.

And isn't it deplorable the way a movement gets a tarnished image by the way some demagogue grabs the jargon and buzzwords from said movement and proceeds to run people through a sausage grinder based on his "vision" of communism, christianity, islam, et al.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NygdanNot naziism, but regular old facism?


well look at ww2...only one such country was humane and peaceful, japan and germany were just as bad as eachother and italy was not much better, the main thing with fascism is xenophobia and militaristic expansionism.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 06:47 AM
link   
What was he on about?!?

The third way was put down during the Spanish civil war!

It was call anarcho-syndicalism and both the fascists and the Commies were briefly united against this tewrrible foe. Its only crime was that of a good example. THe fascists and the Commies were both afraid of the success of this "3rd way", as this might give the labouring classes in europe the idea that there was a 3rd alternative and we can't have THAT now can we?!? Come on do you kow how hard it would have been to divide europe in to 3 parts instead of 2 ?!?!

Any way this third way of your is at best a 4th way and probably more.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   
first of all the comies as you called them were majority liberals, but called reds by the extrem right, in the same way a leftist american is liberal right here (here being sweden)

And a bit less mcarthyism please, people use excuses like we are selfish by nature to try to justify the system we have today.
people do not inherit selfishness, why it is such a normal thing is because it it is promoted, we are born blank our envourment is what shapes us.
who said communism dont work?
lets look at history shall we.
russia 1916, the most backward country of the old powers
look at russia 1966, the biggest political and military power in the world only toped by USA, and not by much, and then we have to remeber that russia had both worldwars fought in thier backyard, pulled the biggest starw in ww2 and under mismanagement they still manageed to do in 50 years what took the west ca 200 years.
look at chile before USA made it its business to work against them internationally and staging the coup.

all the cold war proved is that USA had a to big headstart



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   


lets look at history shall we.
russia 1916, the most backward country of the old powers
look at russia 1966, the biggest political and military power in the world only toped by USA, and not by much, and then we have to remeber that russia had both worldwars fought in thier backyard


a) While not a history expert, by all accounts Russia in 1913 was on the right track politically and economically. This year was used as a benchmark in may papers/books on Russian economy in the 20th century. Russia was exporting wheat all over Europe (they import most if it now), the agriculture was devloping fast as was industry, and there was a political reform in the making. If the process was allowed to continue, I have no doubt Russia would have become a major European power, without communism.

b) I agree that fighting huge wars on your own turf does terrible things to the nation, something people outside Europe rarely appreciate. So yes, Russia proved a resilient nation, having rebuilt (to some extent) twice in the 20th century.

[edit on 30-8-2004 by Aelita]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
In fact even in the EU the communism isn't dead. I'm talking about the socialists in Germany and Spain. In Spain they're even the government now



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I hope that will make the diffrence needed, to not let the EU become the US indiffrent predesessor when the US-empire falls in 15-20 years....



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I think that communism and even more especially anarchy, offer blistering critiques of the status quo.


Hmm.. that's a very good point Dr. I hadn't looked at it that way. I guess that means as political ideologies/movements they are indeed valid, even though we wouldn't really want to live under either of them.

Whether or not that can be successfully integrated into the mainstream would depend then on the political structure of the country in question. In a parliamentary democracy like the UK the presence of some communist or anarchist MP's wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing (though I can't imagine how they would ever get voted in). A little radical thinking can be beneficial in such systems.

I don't know enough about Republic/ Representative democracy style government know whether it could work in the US though. I wonder?

[edit on 1/9/04 by muppet]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Linux has an excellent point - whatever it was that existed in the Soviet Union under Stalin and afterwards, it wasn't communism - and the strangest paradox is that had Marx lived under the Soviet regime, he would possibly have been "purged".

A lot of people call any encroachment on the sacrosanct rule of the private sector "socialism". Some of them are even a step from branding Canada with a hammer and sicle because of our health care system and generous social net.

I think that it's not an either/or where individualism vs. the community is concerned. The world has a community of destiny, national borders notwithstanding. It's only natural that while preserving the rights of all individuals, increased interrelations would necessitate a system where we look out for each other more. Some of us don't get the same chances as others do, it's only normal to give them a chance.

The Pope himself has chastised capitalism for its lack of compassion... does that make him a communist?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join