Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Violence is almost assuredly a step, not the first. But violence doesn't mean brutalizing and terrorizing the populace you're trying to set free. It doesn't mean forcing them into labor camps and, due to that brutal and non-communistic policy, silencing and assassinating dissidents.
Click to expand...
What it does mean is violence against those who take up arms, and refuse to accept the changing of society as it goes along with the changing of productive forces shaping it.
Click to expand...
Is, or is not, refusing to accept the Communist revolution of the proletariat's right to take over your property and distribute it as they see fit dissent?

What is it then?

Hmmm?

What classifies as "legitimate dissent" then, if not the right to oppose having your property redistributed? Hmmm?

"Oh its not dissent if you oppose us taking your stuff, but once we've taken your stuff, and we're starving you to death on the commune, and you rebel, well that's legitimate dissent and we won't fight back"

Just how stupid do you actually think people are, really?

Just how fucking stupid do you think the rest of society is? You must think we're all just mouth breathing neanderthals to think this contradiction isn't glaringly obvious, and your assertions that your evolved state of consciousness justifies these actions is the height of sociopathy and narcissism.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
hodj_sl said:
HOW IS KILLING RICH WALL STREET EXECS BECAUSE THEY OPPOSE YOUR POINT OF VIEW NOT SILENCING DISSENT THROUGH VIOLENCE?
Click to expand...
Becausetheywill fight to the bitter end to ensure their current way of life remains intact. If they want to join the revolution, they're certainly welcome. But they cannot keep their existing social relations that are being discarded. Industry and capitalism no longer supported lordship. Freedom and communism will no longer support capital and plutocrats.
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Dumar_sl said:
Becausetheywill fight to the bitter end to ensure their current way of life remains intact. If they want to join the revolution, they're certainly welcome. But they cannot keep their existing social relations that are being discarded. Industry and capitalism no longer supported lordship. Freedom and communism will no longer support capital and plutocrats.
Click to expand...
lol. this sounds like free association.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
Because they will fight to the bitter end to ensure their current way of life remains intact
Click to expand...
So because they dare defend what they perceive to be righfully theirs, its okay to kill them.

And that form of crushing dissent? Perfectly fine under Marxism, as long as you don't send them to the labor camp first.

Thank you Dumar, I couldn't find a better argument for my side than the one you're making right now. Congratulations.

If they want to join the revolution, they're certainly welcome.
Click to expand...


Industry and capitalism no longer supported lordship. Freedom and communism will no longer support capital and plutocrats.
Click to expand...
Most worthless justification ever. It won't just be the plutocrats, you can't do it without redistributing everyone's shit. What about when the middle class refuses to join in? Killing them is justified. But you said killing dissenters wasn't in tune with Marxist doctrine.

You literally can't even keep your OWN ideology straight anymore. That's how deeply and profoundly unsound your beliefs are.
 
TheBeagle

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
9,138
32,063
Lol.

I do appreciate the conversation and Dumar's efforts to educate. However I have to believe that history is shown that too much of one thing is always a bad thing. That pic from 4chan a few posts up really cemented it into my head. There are just too many people on this planet and too many of them would be raging, destructive idiots if they weren't anaesthetized by pop culture and Ipads. Especially in America with its absolute glut of guns. I just don't think you can keep the lights on and the grocery stores full without some good old capitalism.

On the other hand I do recognize that we are fat pigs in America and we do need to transition into a more self-sustaining, less predatory model, and that's where small doses of socialism are called for.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
TheBeagle_sl said:
Lol.

I do appreciate the conversation and Dumar's efforts to educate. However I have to believe that history is shown that too much of one thing is always a bad thing. That pic from 4chan a few posts up really cemented it into my head. There are just too many people on this planet and too many of them would be raging, destructive idiots if they weren't anaesthetized by pop culture and Ipads. Especially in America with its absolute glut of guns. I just don't think you can keep the lights on and the grocery stores full without some good old capitalism.

On the other hand I do recognize that we are fat pigs in America and we do need to transition into a more self-sustaining, less predatory model, and that's where small doses of socialism are called for.
Click to expand...
Agree.

Any government that becomes a tee totaler, only relying on free markets, or only relying on socialist policies, has stupidly hamstrung itself as badly as Muslim nations who refuse to let half the available work force engage in the economy.

That's the point, though. Some socialism is good. Some capitalism is good. Too much of either isn't. Ideologues need to grow a fucking brain and realize no one strain of thought can possibly have all the answers to all the questions. That's religious thinking, that all solutions come in neat little packages you can read in a book somewhere, if only more people were EDUCATED to how AWESOME that book's ideas are.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
hodj_sl said:
you can't do it without redistributing everyone's shit. What about when the middle class refuses to join in? Killing them is justified. But you said killing dissenters wasn't in tune with Marxist doctrine.
Click to expand...
And again you completely misunderstand the intent of communism (maybe because you don't read?). The intent of real communism is not to redistribute anything. Cleetus isn't taking someone's house for his own. Communism is to abolish not just private property, butits relations. This relation includes the State. No one is takinganything to redistributebecause under the tenet of communism there isnothing to take.

Revolution doesn't happen in a vacuum: it doesn't ignore, but requires, the historical context in which it takes place. You're looking at social productive relations and private property relationsas they are nowand seeing how communism relates to them - in a vacuum.

Society as it exists today is not ready for communism, so the social relations you're using, just as looking at feudalistic social relations while ignoring the productive forces required to change them, are incorrect. Societyfirsthas to go a long way along the road of socialism before even thinking of the communism discussed by Marx. Once we, as a world, global society, finally get there, then we can examine those social relations compared to communistic social relations.

And hopefully, the more incremental the changes, the less violence that will occur. But like I said, with any change in productive forces, comes the looming possibility of violence.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
No one is misunderstanding anything Dumar.

That's the issue here. Your cries for mercy fall on deaf ears. If anything, its you who don't understand your own ideology, because you're so enamored with it you can't see it's flaws.

And that's okay, we all fall in love some times, and love is a powerful antidote to criticism. My wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, for instance. And even if you put her up against the most perfect Victoria's Secrets model, that would remain the same. None are more perfect than my own.

That's what you've got with your ideology.

But the rest of us can see her flaws, and see them quite clearly.

Its not we who misunderstand, its you.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
You constantly misunderstand: I have to always correct in almost every other post regarding a basic definition or formulation. The backlog of doing that probably equals any posts in carrying the conversation forward.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
No, I and no one else here misunderstands you. You are not some misunderstood poor put upon victim here, just incapable of making himself understood. You've made yourself quite clear.

Violence is an acceptable outcome of the revolution, justified by Marx's own words.

Which is why every major Communist revolution has ended in violence. And which is why Mao and Lenin and Stalin and Pol Pot are, in fact, Communists who operated entirely within the boundaries of Marxist thought.

You've made it perfectly, crystal clear.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
So are we going back to that conversation you got wrong again? I'm now confused about what exactly you wanna discuss. I've shown you how Stalinism and Maoism are nowhere close to even Leninism, let alone Marxian philospohy. I've shown you misquoting me, misunderstanding or confusing concepts per the above, and ignoring leading academics, and probably the leading academic, in the humanities.

I have made it perfectly, crystal clear. But you still seem lost, somewhere.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
So are we going back to that conversation you got wrong again?
Click to expand...
Blatant display of willful, malicious delusion and a complete lack of capacity for self reflection.

Congrats on that.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
So Dumar, if repressing dissent is anti Communist, why do you have a right to kill people who don't want to accept you usurping their property?

There is no justification for that. Just saying "Well we've EVOLVED beyond private property, so you're either WITH US OR YOU ARE AGAINST US" isn't a valid answer, you know.

Its the most unethical, least evolved, most sociopathic answer possible, actually.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
I know, I've evolved beyond the need for laws, so I'm going to go out and rape and murder someone, then I'm going to eat them.

HOW DARE YOU JUDGE ME I'VE EVOLVED AND YOU HAVENT, NEANDERTHAL!
 
TheBeagle

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
9,138
32,063
I will take your word for it that Maoism != Stalinism=!Leninism!=Marxism, but common sense and intuition tells us that abolishing the concept of personal property will inevitably lead to violence and bloodshed. At least in a world of finite energy and resources.

What happens to Khalid's family farm? Since there is no longer private property will it be given to the people to join the collective? That hardly seems fair and I just don't see how that can happen in America. That farm is the fruit of his father's life labor, taking it away seems counter to the Marxian ideal of workers not being exploited for their labor.
 
D

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
TheBeagle_sl said:
I will take your word for it that Maoism != Stalinism=!Leninism!=Marxism, but common sense and intuition tells us that abolishing the concept of personal property will inevitably lead to violence and bloodshed. At least in a world of finite energy and resources.

What happens to Khalid's family farm? Since there is no longer private property will it be given to the people to join the collective? That hardly seems fair and I just don't see how that can happen in America. That farm is the fruit of his father's life labor, taking it away seems counter to the Marxian ideal of workers not being exploited for their labor.
Click to expand...
You're thinking of that happening as society exists now, today. The term social relations in Marx's language means how people interact with each other involved in the production process. So for example, a factory owner to a factor worker, an apartment renter to landlord, a CEO to a janitor. Each of these are relationships formed in the process of producing something (well, not really the landlord, that relationship gets blasted to hell and back in Marx's texts).

So you cannot look at modern social relations as they exist today, khalid's dad's farm or a business to a worker on that farm, and apply social relations as they would exist under a communistic society. It's like taking early agrarian society and trying to transform it by these modern social relations. That society first had to go through agrarian, to the concept of money, to feudalism, industrialism, and onward into capitalism before that social relation formed and made any sense.

And so, we have steps we must take before looking at real communism. The first step in my opinion, is educating people about the truths of capitalism, After a certain time, we'll be implementing socialistic policies that give power back to the worker. Once we finally abolish the concepts of companies and corporations outright, that to me is the first real step toward a true communistic society, but we just can't take a giant leap there.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,673
18,384
And maybe one day Jesus will come back and take us all to heaven.

Look at Dumar pretending Marx and himself can predict the future.

So you cannot look at modern social relations as they exist today, khalid's dad's farm or a business to a worker on that farm, and apply social relations as they would exist under a communistic society.
Click to expand...
But you yourself said that the switch to communism won't happen over night and will take steps. And that one of those steps will necessarily be violent revolution against those who don't wish to evolve with your societal consciousness.

And so, we have steps we must take before looking at real communism.
Click to expand...
Like killing anyone who desires to keep their farm. Because they refused to evolve with the rest of society.

Once we finally abolish the concepts of companies and corporations outright, that to me is the first real step toward a true communistic society, but we just can't take a giant leap there.
Click to expand...
What if the share holders don't want to lose the value of their investments when you come to seize their corporations?

Will killing them because they dissent be okay by Marx?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.