|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:04 pm
Gracchvs no no no, YOU value democracy, you value democracy as an abstract universal, which it isnt, and never can be, it is only a form of state, and all states are based on the oppression of one class by another, bourgeois democracy is democracy for the bourgoeisie, it oppresses the proletariat in order to create profits, while proletarian democracy is democracy for the proletariat, with oppression of the bourgeoisie in order to safeguard the revolution, which of course you oppose, because, all men are brothers[so sayeth the anarchists and reformists and humanists!] Right on bourgeoise democracy being democracy for the bourgeoise. I value a democracy that is above social classes, where social class will not exist. A democracy for all men (referring of course to all people, I am in the habit of using masculine pronouns). A communist democracy, if you will... And I don't perceive any need to oppress the bourgeoise to safeguard the revolution, empowering the proletariat should be enough to do so, with the proletariat in power rather than the bourgeoise there will be no need for oppression at all. Because you do realize that I am opposed to oppression in general, not just the oppression of one social class or another...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:09 pm
yup, dats right, yoo no kommy!
look, im so sorry about that post, ive been a little light hearted for the past few hours, so yeah......
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:32 pm
Lol, it happens. You know I'm a communist though...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:54 pm
I'm not the kind of person who would use that term lightly. In fact I spent several months shying away from actually using it. M-mann can testify to that one, I kept sitting in the forums on ED defending communism but never using the term to apply to myself. You see, there's far too much of a social stigma attached to it. But yeah, I'm a communist. cool
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:05 pm
Do I sense doubt in your last response?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:07 pm
not in the responce, there is just a giant wave of doubt materialised running naked and screaming the lyrics to maralyn mansons "the food pyramid" around the world....
ok, maybe that was a bit too much.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:10 pm
xd
So rather in the purely nihilistic sense?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:14 pm
i dont think of too many people as realy communist, hell, as far as i can see it, only marx, engels, lenin and trotsky were true communists, everyone else is just a follower...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:19 pm
The problem with followers of any political system is that there is often a point when the followers adopt that particular ideology as dogmatic and lose their capacity for independent thought.
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky... they didn't just follow a system of ideas, they made it. That's something I really admire, the ability to create a system, to develop ideas, to write one's own path.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:26 pm
well thats the thing, only marx and engels made it, and most of that was split, economy and plitics to marx, nature and history to engels. all lenin and trotsky did was use the material dialectic to provide a course of action and elaborate on what marx and engels said.
as to the thing about independant though and dogmatism, you should read lenins "what is to be done" it is one of the books i like to read every year.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:29 pm
I shall do so. Is it in the archive?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:35 pm
oh, yeah, i should have posted a link to it... sorry...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|