Which ideology are you?

[flashleg8]

Perhaps I read the manifesto wrong or don't remember correctly, but your definitions of socialism and communism are backwards. Socialism is seen as the necessary step between capitalism and communism, in which the State owns and controls everything, while (in practice) giving mere lip service to the people.

Communism is a return to hunter/gatherer or primitive agrarian society where everyone just helps everybody else and lives in perfect harmony with nature, etc.

And:

I thought Marx had it the other way round, communism as the goal you described and socialism as the step in between.

No, perhaps you are confusing what Lenin said as opposed to Marx. This is actually one of first branches of differentiation between Marxism and Marx-Leninism.

Marx defined socialism as the human condition established after two phases of communism have overcome the need of and desire for private property. Lenin defined socialism as a socioeconomic system whose political and economic foundations are merely transitional to Marx's first phase of communism.

Quote Marx, "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts"(1844):

"Socialism is man's positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the annulment of religion, just as real life is man's positive reality, no longer mediated through the annulment of private property, through communism. . . . Communism is the . . . actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation. . . .Communism is the necessary pattern and dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development - which goal is the structure of human society."

Here "human society" means socialist-minded society; Marx is saying that socialism is the end, whereas communism is the means. Communism is an "actual phase" of society prior to the next historical stage of human development, whereas socialism is "man's positive self-consciousness." Communism is about economic and political systems, whereas socialism is about human development. Communism is about classes and parties, but socialism is about people.

(italics quoted from online source)

Hope that clears that up a bit, but it’s quite common even among the left to use the words interchangeably. I don't want to become too dogmatic about this, and in reality this schism contributes to the confusion between socialism/communism/Marxist etc and often debates on the left dissolve into this sectarian nonsense.

By chance, YOU wouldn't happen to be a Communist would you? (going by your avatar and such)

I am indeed. (I'm not a party member, really due to the fact that the party in Scotland varies on some fundamental issues (such as independence for Scotland) which I cannot fully support) but I do pay my dues to various left organisations and newspapers.

[diddle]

yeah.......what he said

[MeDeFe]

Wait, communism is a "return to nature" and "perfect harmony with nature"? wtf? Have I missed something really important?

[Norse]

All that all of these poncey 'intellectual ideals' represent in my eyes, are stumbling blocks that have been introduced into the pools of so-called intellects to distract them from the actualities of the situation.

Whether it be market-liberalism/socialism/anarchism/conservatism, you are all pitted against one another, led to the belief that 'the other side' is winning", that you are the oppressed one, you are the one that isn't being listened to.

I expect you all sit around in trendy cafe's, chatting with other sophisticated intellects about the nitty-gritty of your poncey ideal's.

Meanwhile, the world keep turning, the 'real enemy' are winning, and whilst you are tieing yourselves up into knots about your utopian dreams, the 'real enemy' is plotting its next move.

My thoughts on the matter?

Forget what you think you know. Start looking around you. Look at the direction that the governments of this world are collectively swaying towards. Kiss your future childrens humanity goodbye, because we are selling their lives down the river.

How? by being extremely ignorant

And guess what? You can't do a fucking thing about it.

[Jolly Roger]

All that all of these poncey 'intellectual ideals' represent in my eyes, are stumbling blocks that have been introduced into the pools of so-called intellects to distract them from the actualities of the situation.

Whether it be market-liberalism/socialism/anarchism/conservatism, you are all pitted against one another, led to the belief that 'the other side' is winning", that you are the oppressed one, you are the one that isn't being listened to.

I expect you all sit around in trendy cafe's, chatting with other sophisticated intellects about the nitty-gritty of your poncey ideal's.

Meanwhile, the world keep turning, the 'real enemy' are winning, and whilst you are tieing yourselves up into knots about your utopian dreams, the 'real enemy' is plotting its next move.

My thoughts on the matter?

Forget what you think you know. Start looking around you. Look at the direction that the governments of this world are collectively swaying towards. Kiss your future childrens humanity goodbye, because we are selling their lives down the river.

How? by being extremely ignorant

And guess what? You can't do a fucking thing about it.

I've got an idea.

What if I start having bare knuckle boxing matches in my basement with a group of aquaintances and after building the membership, I franchise the club and start giving the members little assignments to be carried out as part of their daily lives and then I recruit members to come into my home where they will be trained in guerilla warfare and conduct missions of gross civil disobedience and once franchises have spread to other major cities and our membership has grown into the tens of thousands, I task my army to destroy the headquarters of all major credit card companies in an attempt to wipe out personal debt and "reset" society?

It should work.

[Jenos Ridan]

I'm of the ideology that says everything is dumb and that nothing is sacred.

So in other words, total chaos and anarchy?

you know, anarchy doesn't have to be chaotic...

if correctly done, anarchy can work quite well, but it has to be a person's choice to live in an anarchical society, it can't be forced on people...they have to accept the ideals of said society in order for it to have a chance of working...

So, you'd have to bend you will to serve the collective? No thanks. Even it it wasn't a choice. And another issue: how do you guys take care of the louse cannons? Y'know, like the rapists and murderers? Without dedicated police, I'd image that would be hard, unless you're all a bunch of brain-washed Borg Drones and can act instantly to the issue with mechanical precision.

[flashleg8]

Meanwhile, the world keep turning, the 'real enemy' are winning, and whilst you are tieing yourselves up into knots about your utopian dreams, the 'real enemy' is plotting its next move.

Who do you mean by "real enemy" (are you being sarcastic? or are you quoting someone? It's sometimes difficult to tell in forum text)

Forget what you think you know. Start looking around you. Look at the direction that the governments of this world are collectively swaying towards.

Which way do you think they are swinging? Totalitarianism? Islamist? Capitalist? I'm not sure the point you're driving at, could you elaborate?

And as for your other point that we (the people) cannot change our government - I would merely point to history to prove you wrong. In almost every country in the world, when the collective will of the people demand change, the government (or rulers) cannot suppress that change. Look at Gandhi’s independence movement in India, Castro’s popular revolution in Cuba, the American independence war, the October revolution of 1917 in Russia, a pletera of colonial independence movements...need I go on?

[Skittles!]

I'm of the ideology that says everything is dumb and that nothing is sacred.

So in other words, total chaos and anarchy?

you know, anarchy doesn't have to be chaotic...

if correctly done, anarchy can work quite well, but it has to be a person's choice to live in an anarchical society, it can't be forced on people...they have to accept the ideals of said society in order for it to have a chance of working...

So, you'd have to bend you will to serve the collective? No thanks. Even it it wasn't a choice. And another issue: how do you guys take care of the louse cannons? Y'know, like the rapists and murderers? Without dedicated police, I'd image that would be hard, unless you're all a bunch of brain-washed Borg Drones and can act instantly to the issue with mechanical precision.

Oh god, I'm sure this has been discussed before.

Anarchy can work if the people are willing, responsible and respect other people. If someone does happen to disagree with this willingness, responsibility, and respect, then the anarchist community will agree on a matter. Not actually having any laws and such to go by, it will be up to the people to have a say in what happens to the rapist/murderer (etc. etc.).

[flashleg8]

Wait, communism is a "return to nature" and "perfect harmony with nature"? wtf? Have I missed something really important?

This is not really something I would support.

[jay_a2j]

Conservative, why? Lower taxes, less government into private life, personal responsibility, etc...

QFT

[btownmeggy]

Marx defined socialism as the human condition established after two phases of communism have overcome the need of and desire for private property. Lenin defined socialism as a socioeconomic system whose political and economic foundations are merely transitional to Marx's first phase of communism.

Today in Cuba, party economists tend to call their form of government "Transition to Socialism", which has a more sonorous, pleasing tone to it than "Communism".

[muy_thaiguy]

Marx defined socialism as the human condition established after two phases of communism have overcome the need of and desire for private property. Lenin defined socialism as a socioeconomic system whose political and economic foundations are merely transitional to Marx's first phase of communism.

Today in Cuba, party economists tend to call their form of government "Transition to Socialism", which has a more sonorous, pleasing tone to it than "Communism".

May as well call it as what it is, then something else. I'll stick with calling it Communism, since that is what it is.

[vtmarik]

Marx defined socialism as the human condition established after two phases of communism have overcome the need of and desire for private property. Lenin defined socialism as a socioeconomic system whose political and economic foundations are merely transitional to Marx's first phase of communism.

Today in Cuba, party economists tend to call their form of government "Transition to Socialism", which has a more sonorous, pleasing tone to it than "Communism".

May as well call it as what it is, then something else. I'll stick with calling it Communism, since that is what it is.

It's more like oppressive autocracy posing as communism, or OAPAC.

[Jenos Ridan]

Been some time since I read the Manifesto, but seeing as how all power, social economic and political are vested in an appointed oligarchy, it leads me to logically deduce that it would result in a police state. That in order to enact economic equality is to enact the removal of certain inalienable rights of personal freedom. Would people still be equal before the law? Yes, but because the law forbids them the right to do more or less as they please. "Sorry, can't let you leave town. It'll disrupt the system." "BS!"*

*man is silently carted away to be 're-educated'