Well obviously the only thing that matters is that they call themselves a communistno matter what they actually believe.So what makes someone Communist then, Mikhail?
Marx is really good to take out of context, as evidenced by you. As there's literally hundreds of writers, sociologists, anthropologists, and other -ists influenced by Marx and labeling themselves Marxists, it's bound to inspire strong opinion and debate.Now you're telling us if we don't read Marx chapter and verse, and read a quote over and over until we accept it (I guess the reason you want us to read it over and over it because you hope to brainwash us through repetition) then your side wins the argument.
You guys literally contradict each other.
Its pathetic.
Mik the thing is, people who are considered communist in history you are disregarding and labeling them as something else because your narrow definition doesn't fit.Well obviously the only thing that matters is that they call themselves a communistno matter what they actually believe.
WAIT i forgot, Dumar and Mik, the only true Communists on the earthMarx is really good to take out of context, as evidenced by you. As there's literally hundreds of writers, sociologists, anthropologists, and other -ists influenced by Marx and labeling themselves Marxists, it's bound to inspire strong opinion and debate.
The two passages I provided you are key to understanding his thought of what communism is and what it is not, Marx's thought. I'm not defending Lenin's concept of communism, of Stalin's, of Mao's. Maybe they earnestly believed what they were doing was right, no idea (although Lenin was closer than others). Likely they were just using Marx's words to their own gain. It doesn't matter.
The fact is their realization of whatever ideas they had were in terms of an abstract capitalist and a class of people benefiting from the exploitation that the abstract capitalist had over their people.
As the first quote says, evenequality of wagesisn't enough.
Mikhail's argument is now "Don't believe what Mao said about what he believed, believe what I tell you about what he believed."Well obviously the only thing that matters is that they call themselves a communistno matter what they actually believe.
Yeah I already know you wouldn't engage in an honest argument.Yeah well that's you. I would and do laugh in their faces when they try that shit.
No. That wasn't what they said or what I said they said. JESUS your reading comprehension sucks. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?Oh the holocaust didn't happen? really?
Except that capitalists can't point to features which both violate the constraints of capitalism AND are directly link-able to the problems associated with capitalism (that second part is important).There is no guilt by association or anything else here Mikhail. All I'm doing is EXACTLY WHAT COMMUNISTS DO TO CAPITALISM every day.
No. My argument isn't that they weren't close enough. My argument is that they were moves in exactly theoppositedirection.You want to cry that all these examples aren't really examples because they fell short of the most idealized state of utopian perfection your fragile little mind can dream up.
Yeah dude, I got it. You can use the word Communism a lot without ever justifying it based on some set of necessary conditions. For you, there's just one condition and it's always sufficient: the name. Brilliant.Here on planet Earth, we call a duck a duck and a rose a rose and when Mao writes a book called the Little Red Book of Communism, and runs a Communist nation for decades as the head of the Communist party and regularly cites Communist theory and rhetoric as justification and reasoning for his policies, we call that Communism, even if it hurts the little commies tushies because their fantasy communism got its shiny little white shoes tarnished with a few hundred million dead bodies.
Ah, the only marxists are Dumar and Mikhail approved ones. That argument. Again.Marx is really good to take out of context, as evidenced by you. As there's literally hundreds of writers, sociologists, anthropologists, and other -ists influenced by Marx and labeling themselves Marxists, it's bound to inspire strong opinion and debate.
ftfy. The reality is that the next Marxist I argue with will cite two other paragraphs and call them the most important paragraphs to understanding what a true Marxist is. Bad argument continues to be bad. Moreso, is an appeal to authority now.The two passages I provided you are key to understanding his thought of what communism is and what it is not,to me
No, see, it does matter. Why, if those "communists" were only using Marx's words for personal gain, should ANYONE, EVER, EVER AGAIN, not think the same of ANYONE claiming to want to bring about a Marxist revolution?Marx's thought. I'm not defending Lenin's concept of communism, of Stalin's, of Mao's. Maybe they earnestly believed what they were doing was right, no idea (although Lenin was closer than others). Likely they were just using Marx's words to their own gain. It doesn't matter.
Right, nothing is enough, even if we have to tear the evil people with a tiny percentage more than ourselves apart with claws and teeth!As the first quote says, evenequality of wagesisn't enough.
Yeah dude. The soviets were one of the groups the socialists were fighting against. I know that doesn't make sense to you, but just try:Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediatruly sounds like a worker's paradise
NO RETARD. I SAID MARX DIDN'T DEFINE SOCIALISM. ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY FUCK UP THIS BADLY? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?Dumar, in case you weren't aware, Mikhail has spent much of this thread telling us to ignore Marx, that he wasn't really defining Marxism
Actually, I'd say laughing in the face of someone trying to sell me horseshit coated in chocolate ice cream is the absolute height of honesty, actually.Yeah I already know you wouldn't engage in an honest argument.
Uh, you need to read that shit again. I was faux responding to a metaphorical Stormfronter Holocaust denier as in "OH, really, the HOlocaust didn't happen?" The only reading comprehension problem here is yours.No. That wasn't what they said or what I said they said. JESUS your reading comprehension sucks. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?
Special pleading again. Forcing children to labor in factories is not an implicit part of capitalism. There's nothing implicitly about Capitalism that says we need to bomb the Middle East for oil, either. In fact Capitalists could very well play the disingenuous denial games and do all the time. But nice strawman you're arguing there.Except that capitalists can't point to features which both violate the constraints of capitalism AND are directly link-able to the problems associated with capitalism (that second part is important).
At the time, they felt they were moving inexactly the right directionand itstheiropinion that matters, not yours.No. My argument isn't that they weren't close enough. My argument is that they were moves in exactly theoppositedirection.
Thats where I got my quote from.Yeah dude. The soviets were one of the groups the socialists were fighting against. I know that doesn't make sense to you, but just try:Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please.
NO RETARD.I SAID MARX DIDN'T DEFINE SOCIALISM.ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY FUCK UP THIS BADLY? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
You're so mad you must just be reading through straight blood red right nowDumar, in case you weren't aware, Mikhail has spent much of this thread telling us toignore Marx, that he wasn't really defining Marxism
Except in the real world you're talking about someone who is actually a pool boy passing himself off as an engineer to dipshits like you who think that merely accepting his claims that his job is in engineering is sufficient. If you weren't a fucking idiot, you could try looking at what the necessary conditions are to be an engineer (or out of the metaphor, a socialist) and see if, despite the rhetoric and labels, those things actually apply. That's how a rational person approaches taxonomy.If I know a guy who is an engineer, I know it because he works a job in engineering, he claims to be an engineer, I see him with blueprints drawn up going to work in the morning, I see his diploma claiming he's an engineer.
In Mikhail's universe, he concludes the guy is actually a pool boy.
Yeah no.Except in the real world you're talking about someone who is actually a pool boy passing himself off as an engineer to dipshits like you who think that merely accepting his claims that his job is in engineering is sufficient. If you weren't a fucking idiot, you could try looking at what the necessary conditions are to be an engineer (or out of the metaphor, a socialist) and see if, despite the rhetoric and labels, those things actually apply. That's how a rational person approaches taxonomy.
You are conflating the people I'm talking about with the people that crushed them militarily. It's so wrong it's unbelievable.If communism is so wonderful, why cant it stand on its own merits? Why is EVERY Communist revolution is punctuated by purges and Reigns of Terror, inclduing your beloved Catalonia? Why isnt everyone just buying into the awesomeness of the system?
Yeah, there were people with plenty of other desires and so we killed them, instead of convincing them about the merits of our system.
You know it was socialism too because it's right there in the name.Pol Pot didn't just call himself a socialist.
He tried to enact a concept called agrarian socialism.
Agrarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agrarian socialism is a socioeconomic political system which combines an agrarian way of life with socialist economic policies.
In Mikhails' universe, trying to enact agrarian socialist economic systems makes you a capitalist.