Coggins7 wrote:Okay, do I need to explain what communism is? It is NOT the control of the many in the hands of the few- it is the EXTREME opposite of fascism! I want to say "good grief" ;) But I'll resist.
Are you actually serious about this? I thought I read here that you said, communism is not the control of the many in the hands of the few. Perhaps I need new glasses...
The communist society in pure ideology is that Coggins. Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about!
Everything is for the good of the state and state owned in the fascist model.
Fascism = state owned = good for the state
Communism = stateless = good for all
Come on guys!
Good heavens! If this is the kind of pap they feed you in the Liberation Party its no wonder the entire membership numbers in the few hundreds of thousands. Both points you made above are precisely and exactly definitive of communism in practice, and there is no historical precedent to the contrary. You have clearly never read the Communist Manifesto, in which each and every point you deny to communism is made in explicit detail.
I own a copy of the Communist Manifesto and have read it a number of times and discussed it ad naseum with a few self proclaimed Communist sympathizers. I say communism (the ideology) is stateless and good for all - you show ME where the communist manifesto refutes 'each and every point' of that.
Here's what Marx said himself:
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action of the leading civilized countries at least is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
Or, do you mean socialism? The terms socialism and communism were used interchangeably by communists themselves for generations. Of course, the communism you are speaking of, the pure communism of Marx's final utopia, is a fantastic juvenile fantasy that can never be realized by actual human beings, and the road toward that utopia is littered with well over 1oo,ooo,ooo bodies.
No I don't mean socialism! They are two distinct ideologies Coggins. Stop pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about. Agreed that it is a fantasy and YET you are still pretending that on the right/left political scale it's not there. It is!
No they're not! Authority in fascism is the state. Authority in communism is the many and there is NO state. You guys are confusing the ideology with the parties.
Huh????? All communist societies that have ever existed in the history of this planet are Hegelian totalitarian police states. The state is all and all is the state. The world soul; the full potential and meaning of the individual is only realized by absorption into the state and into the cause of the glorious "revolution". Good heavens you've drunk the Kool Aid shaken, not stirred.
This is during the revolutionary stage Coggins! And of course you know this, right? It's also not appropriate to label them communist is it? Rather they are socialist? And of course this shows the problems with socialism that are seeking the pure utopia of communism is that it is NOT likely to be realized. But surely you're not saying that the ideology (which you need to admit exists in a form, right?) is the same as fascism, which is what you argued earlier?
haha. Communism during the revolution is forced and then does away with the state and all forms of force.
Should we put our great ole USA into this same category since our forefathers had a revolution and 'forced' a Republic?
More humor (I hope). The "communism" to which you are referring is a hubristic utopian fantasy that can never exist in any real mortal world. The Communism to which I refer, as well as the Fascism, are the historical, actually existing varieties.
It's not humor - it's political theory Coggins which you are quite aware it is.