Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gerd Loki)
    Certainly. We believe that the current capitalist system that dominates humanity is unsustainable. .
    Commies have been saying that since Marx's day and we are still waiting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Commies have been saying that since Marx's day and we are still waiting.
    And of course there are no impending ecological and anthropological disasters in the near future?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HeartOfDarkness)
    And of course there are no impending ecological and anthropological disasters in the near future?
    Bar a planet wide catastrophe I doubt we will see the end of capitalism unless its some kind of mass extinction event
    • Offline

      2
      Surely a better thread would be the Marxist Society thread? It is older, with more members.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Gerd Loki)
      There will be no need to enforce laws. The proletariat will be entirely satisfied with the new system, and will have no need to rebel. As for the bourgeoisie, we will not accept any opposition that threatens the progress of the workers.
      And this is where Marxist Communist theory falls down. Heavily.

      The proletariat is the most volitile class. They find dissatisfaction at every turn. And then you have to think about dealing with the underclass. How is this done without a centralised government? Do you leave them die? I mean, they are part of your class, or near enough.

      People cannot be entirely self governing. To be so assumes that people always want what is bst for the collective, which is fundamentally against human nature. True Marxist Communism can never work. We could only ever manage a mockery of it.

      Capatlism is the best system we have. Plain and simple.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Steevee)
      And this is where Marxist Communist theory falls down. Heavily.

      The proletariat is the most volitile class. They find dissatisfaction at every turn. And then you have to think about dealing with the underclass. How is this done without a centralised government? Do you leave them die? I mean, they are part of your class, or near enough.

      People cannot be entirely self governing. To be so assumes that people always want what is bst for the collective, which is fundamentally against human nature. True Marxist Communism can never work. We could only ever manage a mockery of it.
      Here is a rough thumb print on how order would be maintained under communism: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1&postcount=21

      The problems associated with the "under class" as you put it are a result of the lack of material opportunities (such as worker's solidarity [mutual aid]) presented to the individual for them to maximise individual liberty and growth. In other words, with a decent system of self-management and co-operation, the lack of education would diminish. Of course, that is not to say that humanity is perfect, no far from it - no anarchist is saying that. But since we are not perfect, it makes no sense to risk giving "imperfect" people power and domination over others - this can only lead to trouble.

      "Who governs the governors?" I ask.

      And human nature does not exist. Humans adapt to their material surroundings so if we live in a society which rewards greed and competition rather than respect, love and co-operation what do you expect to happen? The ideas proposed about human nature are actually very relevant to philosophy known as "idealism" and naively assumes that mind and matter are seperate. The "materialism" of Marxists and other communists is very down-to-earth and firmly rooted in the soil. We don't subscribe to airy-fairy notions such as human nature or idealism.

      Capatlism is the best system we have. Plain and simple.
      Best for who?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Any left communists around for discussion?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I'm a Revolutionary Marxist-Fascist.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by 0011)
      I'm a Revolutionary Marxist-Fascist.
      Congratulations for making the link between two diametrically opposed ideologies. While we're at it, we might as well make out that all free-market enthusiasts are basically the followers of Pinochet. Long live Chile!
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by HeartOfDarkness)
      From what I know (and admittedly that might not be much), Luxemburg advocated a quasi-anarchist state on the principles of democracy. As yet, it appears to me to be a very hollow and incoherent thesis.

      I have my doubts about the functioning of democracy as it exists today. You might say that my views are a bit Platonic. Not necessarily implicit that I'm anti-democratic, just not convinced by the form of democracy that is in play today. I believe the next "breakthrough" in political philosophy that is going to have any sort of bearing on the achievement of a good (albeit not perfect) society has to come in the form of advancements in democratic structures.

      As such, she just seems very narrow in her perception. It's like taking a word at it's face value rather than dwelling over it trying to find a breakthrough. She just takes left liberalism and combines it with an idealistic perception of democracy with a bit of anarchism thrown in. Just a reactionary thought process to the contemporary situation in the Soviet.

      If it's not scientific, it doesn't have a leg to stand on.
      To describe Luxembourg as a liberal is an insult and a gross oversimplification.

      (Original post by F i s)
      Not true. You can't have Right Liberalism btw.
      Yeah, you can (in fact all pro-capitalist ideologies are liberal: social liberalism ["left-wing capitalism"], conservative liberalism and classical liberalism). Which is why in the other thread when you accused me of being illiberal I retorted with "I am no liberal".
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
      Yeah, you can (in fact all pro-capitalist ideologies are liberal: social liberalism ["left-wing capitalism"], conservative liberalism and classical liberalism). Which is why in the other thread when you accused me of being illiberal I retorted with "I am no liberal".
      Mate you can't be left-wing and not Liberal ffs. Classical Liberalism is on the left sphere and conservative liberalism is made up like Liberal-Fascism. I shall use wikipedia for this lol.

      "Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, fair trade, and the separation of church and state."

      All anarchists are left-wing aren't they?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by F i s)
      Mate you can't be left-wing and not Liberal ffs. Classical Liberalism is on the left sphere and conservative liberalism is made up like Liberal-Fascism. I shall use wikipedia for this lol.

      This is very ridiculous indeed. Classical liberalism for one is founded upon the basis of private property rights, a free market and a small state that will protect these things above all else.

      The vast majority of left wing ideology opposes all three of those things. It also opposes the liberal conception of indivdiaul rights etc..etc..
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Aj12)
      Commies have been saying that since Marx's day and we are still waiting.


      He never explicitly named a date. (Because that would be silly.) For all we know capitalism may be in its infancy. But one cannot deny that the boom bust cycle has developed over the years in terms of damage and intensity, as has the scope of the damage it can fling around.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
      Here is a rough thumb print on how order would be maintained under communism: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1&postcount=21

      The problems associated with the "under class" as you put it are a result of the lack of material opportunities (such as worker's solidarity [mutual aid]) presented to the individual for them to maximise individual liberty and growth. In other words, with a decent system of self-management and co-operation, the lack of education would diminish. Of course, that is not to say that humanity is perfect, no far from it - no anarchist is saying that. But since we are not perfect, it makes no sense to risk giving "imperfect" people power and domination over others - this can only lead to trouble.

      "Who governs the governors?" I ask.

      And human nature does not exist. Humans adapt to their material surroundings so if we live in a society which rewards greed and competition rather than respect, love and co-operation what do you expect to happen? The ideas proposed about human nature are actually very relevant to philosophy known as "idealism" and naively assumes that mind and matter are seperate. The "materialism" of Marxists and other communists is very down-to-earth and firmly rooted in the soil. We don't subscribe to airy-fairy notions such as human nature or idealism.
      I disagree. Human nature does exist, and that can be seen from everyday life. No matter what you give some people they will not be happy. These people that make up the underclass now will not take up the pickaxe and hoe after the revolution. They do as they always do and scrounge, and steal and take from a hardworking man. Their nature will not change under communism.
      Just as there are those that honestly seek to be better than others, to rise higher and earn more. Communism allows only for those happy with 1 place in society, a worker. You will state that Capatalism leads to the opression of the working class, but under such a system at least there is oppurtunity for betterment. For success and life beyond the hammer and sickle. Communism confines you all to the same level, and that is not something people will accept.

      We govern the Government :rolleyes:
      Democracy isn't total, but it is better than no government. You ned only take a look at the countries that have periods without govenment to see that.


      (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
      Best for who?
      Best for everyone. No other system allows for the such social mobility. Despite what you say Communism would confine us all to one class, and whilst this may stop the 'class war' you all seem so convinced is happening, it certainley doesn't alow mobility.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
      Congratulations for making the link between two diametrically opposed ideologies. While we're at it, we might as well make out that all free-market enthusiasts are basically the followers of Pinochet. Long live Chile!
      Anarchist Slime. The people is the state. What revolutionary marxism-fascism is a revolutionary, novel approach to an effecient allocation of economic resources with a backdrop of extreme patriotic fevor and total command economy without the greedy profit motive and mother****ering capitalists pigs. A revolutionary marxist-fascism means everyone is committed to a single ideology regardless, preventing anarchist or capitalist enemies of the people sabotaging our marxist-fascist order. A revolutionary marxist-fascist is glory to the people, to our state and glory to Revolutionary Marxism-Fascism!!!!!!!!
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      The bourgeoisie will be brought down, just like their feudal ancestors before them, it's a matter of time.

      Those who say that people in this country have too much to lose are exactly right. On a global scale it is us in the west that are the oppressors. History teaches us that revolution comes from the oppressed, those people who as Marx puts it 'have nothing to lose but their chains'.

      Why do you think the US tries so hard to overthrow the left wing governments of South America? It's because the continents of South America and Asia are where the workers are exploited to support our extravagant life styles. You can only push people so far, the more you exploit these people and rub their noses in it the angrier they get, there will come a point where they will fight back.

      Revolution is inevitable, of that I am sure, what I do question is Marx's rather hopeful prediction that revolution will lead to a communist utopia, does history not suggest the opposite? That human greed will once again corrupt to us leading us to a society of have's and have nots? After all, the 'revolution' from feudal control to bourgeoisie control didn't really change anything, the only difference is exploitation now takes place on a grander scale under better branding.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Gerd Loki)
      Exactly what is it that you find amusing about the suferring and oppression of the working classes. Does the poor child, crying and alone, working for pittance under an abusive master seem funny to you. Is it amusing that millions toil for little reward, whilst the privileged few live an oppulent life of luxury? I don't find this acceptable, and seek to open other's minds to this abominable system.
      Had you just read Oliver Twist when you wrote that?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by F i s)
      Mate you can't be left-wing and not Liberal ffs. Classical Liberalism is on the left sphere and conservative liberalism is made up like Liberal-Fascism.
      No mate, classical liberalism is a free market ideology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

      Social liberalism is a reformed kind of capitalism hence my remark, "left-wing capitalism". I.e. it is capitalism but with a welfare state.

      Conservative liberalism is someone who believes in economic liberalism (free market + private property) with but has authoritarian social beliefs.

      Fascism-liberalism is not made up.

      So you see, liberalism is a capitalist ideology.

      "Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom")[1] is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, fair trade, and the separation of church and state."
      Yes all of that plus it is pro-capitalism (i.e. pro-private property, pro wage labour and all the rest of it).

      communism =/= liberalism

      All anarchists are left-wing aren't they?
      Correct - and we don't like liberals, either.

      (Original post by 0011)
      Anarchist Slime. The people is the state. What revolutionary marxism-fascism is a revolutionary, novel approach to an effecient allocation of economic resources with a backdrop of extreme patriotic fevor and total command economy without the greedy profit motive and mother****ering capitalists pigs. A revolutionary marxist-fascism means everyone is committed to a single ideology regardless, preventing anarchist or capitalist enemies of the people sabotaging our marxist-fascist order. A revolutionary marxist-fascist is glory to the people, to our state and glory to Revolutionary Marxism-Fascism!!!!!!!!
      The workers will not be liberated by the state - we must abolish the state and organise a free association of worker's co-operatives based upon libertarian communist principles to take over from the capitalist hierarchy of wage labour and private property. The state is a third body alien to society. The "cultural state" is an oxymoron.

      (Original post by Steevee)
      I disagree. Human nature does exist, and that can be seen from everyday life. No matter what you give some people they will not be happy. These people that make up the underclass now will not take up the pickaxe and hoe after the revolution. They do as they always do and scrounge, and steal and take from a hardworking man. Their nature will not change under communism.
      Just as there are those that honestly seek to be better than others, to rise higher and earn more. Communism allows only for those happy with 1 place in society, a worker. You will state that Capatalism leads to the opression of the working class, but under such a system at least there is oppurtunity for betterment. For success and life beyond the hammer and sickle. Communism confines you all to the same level, and that is not something people will accept.
      You ignore 90% of my post. "Human nature" adapts according to extraneous material circumstances.

      We govern the Government :rolleyes:
      Yeah...that's what they want you to believe.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      where is your TSR party hehehe
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Joined.
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.