reply to post by TheJourney
umm, I don't think you have read up on the literature, but have been taken in by chomskybots on what communism "really" is.
The literature, from Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, onwards, has always envisaged the state as the administrator of communal power.
Really, no system of communism can function outside of some entity which has "state-like" powers. Socialists are keen on abusing language and using
Orwellian tactics - which Orwell, himself a conflicted communist, knew so well.
Take this ridiculous and puerile notion that communism could thrive outside a state-like structure. HOW? You made the claim, but failed to flesh it
out with a theoretical explanation.
I like reading up on libertarian socialist literature to see what they're up to. Up till now, I have yet to have read anything explaining how a
communist society could operate without state powers. Instead, they replace one term with another, but the idea is essentially the same.
"Communal leaders" representing the interests of the workers. WHAT pray tell, ARE the interests of the workers? Can the workers be homogenized into
one group and be simply called workers? Are workers not first and foremost individuals, with personal beliefs, interests, likes and dislikes? So how
can the "communal leaders" be said to represent the workers, when the workers are a nameless mass whom the communal leaders, like any regular
politician, demagogically molds to advance his or their own philosophical and political interests?
Don't be suckered in by their prattle and abuse of the english language. Communism REQUIRES the use of power. A state power; a paramilitary force
that carries out the policies of the government. Society simply could not function without such an apparatus.
I know you're a spiritual guy, but you're following for that canard which I discussed in my earlier post. What makes a radical radical, is their
obstinate willfulness in believing political reality - and human beings - can be made to conform with their grandiose "gnostic" revelations.
Just think for a second about all the leftist "causes": gay rights went from demonizing homophobia (which is defensible) to claiming heterosexism
(the notion that women and men represent the norm in human relations) inexorably leads to homophobia! An absurdity. There is no such connection. But
since radical leftists are subversives who have no respect for the beliefs of those who disagree with their fantasies, they have to use wile and guile
to change peoples opinions on matters. If their "libertarian socialist" dream is to become a reality, peoples views have to change; whether these
changes reflect scientific facts, is moot. Hence why I find these people as contemptible as radical Islamists. Both reject reality. Both are immersed
in LALA land. Women are different from men and biology, evolutionary theory, will aways gainsay claims to the contrary.
In truth, a philosophy that doesn't try to reconcile the facts of experience will always foster within it a tension with reality. As I think I
mentioned to you before, life is a mixture of left and right. You cannot have it only one way. You're mystic experiences cannot obviate the facts of
reality. You will always have downs because you are a finite being striving against the inertia of existence. This is what life is about. Reconciling
the facts of life with our spiritual ideals.
Radical leftists are spiritually immature. They don't know what it means to rest, to come to grips with reality. They are ceaselessly striving
against the world, against God, against morality, against culture.