Dedicated to Kenzu Milagro - our Czech friend.

**Tyrlop** · Last edited by Tyrlop on Wed May 27, 2009 6:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Others are reformist and others believe it to be one of the many fronts to battle for revolution.

such as?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

A lot of them namely the American Revolution, the French Revolution the Russian Revolution both February's and October's, etc.

Their political systems, that's another thing - these revolutions achieved their goals which were nothing but eliminating the current government and political system and change them for theirs.

Tyrlop wrote:

it can impossible be international, that would cause a miracle to make it international revolution..

So long as you don't have a clear understanding of what "international revolution" means.

what is a international revolution?
its hard for me to imagine in it worldwide, how will it mobilise?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Quoting the bible? What bible? Ah you perhaps mean Marxist literature... I don't even recall quoting a single writting by Marx. In regards to socialism I just traced down the history of that political system and its denomination - nothing more. And that's not being dogmatic, it's just sticking to what socialism stands for. If you believe in something different than that call it other way instead of staining the good name of socialism like others have done.

And we don't live in 2000, but 2009... and I don't see how this is even relevant since the class relationships work pretty much in the same way as they did 150 years ago with the very notable and important differences that the proletariat has been more effectively alienated, the culture of exploitation is more developed and its roots have grown and imperialism has effectively served to keep the proletariats of the 1st world dormant.

that was just silly...... ill jump over that.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

we can succes in the parliament,

And who needs that? Not socialists. Mediocre left-wing statists may do, but not socialists.

thats because your defination of socialist, is that socialist is the exact same of communist. but i don't want to disscusse it here we should get to the point, i admit ive been a bit "away"(mentaly)..
my point of this whole topic is ... it will come later on the end of this post, look below

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrlop wrote:

take a look, whole south america is leftish today thanks to the parliament, soon they will find together and make some important decissions.

"Leftish"... that even sounds pejorative. All those "left-wing" parties in South America are mediocre, populist, welfarist and of course capitalist. I don't see how that comes to someone that claims to be a socialist as a triumph. Their status quo hasn't changed - just the proportions of some of its elements, Venezuela being a horrible example of a failure where the state is nothing but an entity that is hostile to the bourgeoisie, competes against it and yet allows it to exist and protects it this meaning it engages both in exploitation and the defense of exploitation by the bourgeoisie.

No crumbles or breadloafs for the workers, but the bakery, mill and fields themselves!

i dont see any conflict anymore.. you are uhm right at some points the other points i dont point out because you scare the shit out of me.

**Zealot_Kommunizma**

Tyrlop wrote:

such as?

Some socialists, mainly some DeLeonists I know of, believe that the State can be used to abolish it.

How? In essence, you win the elections, you harness power over the state and abolish it while setting the basis for the socialist organizational scheme.

Tyrlop wrote:

what is a international revolution?

A series of revolutions occuring worldwide in different countries within a certain period of time and that would eventually coordinate with each other in a process that could take several years and that could start even in just a single place and spread over the world.

It's not like you snap your fingers and voilá all revolutions occur at the same time all over the world, in case that's what you understood for "international revolution"

Tyrlop wrote:

thats because your defination of socialist, is that socialist is the exact same of communist.

Not "mine" but "the". I already gave an arguement for that which so far hasn't been rebutted by anyone and which actually can't be refuted because it's simply the truth.

Tyrlop wrote:

but i don't want to disscusse it here we should get to the point, i admit ive been a bit "away"(mentaly)..

And we shouldn't, it's been discussed too much already and a conclusion has been reached.

Tyrlop wrote:

my point of this whole topic is ... it will come later on the end of this post, look below

Aha, sure.

Tyrlop wrote:

OW SHIT ITS thundering here, i better turn my pc off. ill post the rest later.

Indeed.

_________________

**Tyrlop**

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Not "mine" but "the". I already gave an arguement for that which so far hasn't been rebutted by anyone and which actually can't be refuted because it's simply the truth.

can i have a link for that topic?????

okey my point of this stopic was something that i forgot it sound silly but that is true, and its not because the lightnening hit me but i think when it pops out of my mind in a few minuts maximum some hours i will post the rest

EDIT check the other post i edited it.

**Zealot_Kommunizma**

Tyrlop wrote:

its hard for me to imagine in it worldwide, how will it mobilise?

Through the dissemination of information and perhaps in neighboring cases by immediate active cooperation.

Tyrlop wrote:

that was just silly...... ill jump over that

What was silly and why?

Tyrlop wrote:

you are uhm right at some points

Aha, which?

Tyrlop wrote:

the other points i dont point out because you scare the shit out of me.

Aha... why?

Tyrlop wrote:

can i have a link for that topic?????

Sure.

_________________

**CoolKidX**

Okay Zealot, one more time then.

Just correct me, 'aight?

So, you can't get communism by reformism, because, when a communist party in a pairliment is the biggest, note that its a party, and that they are making the rules, and not every guy for himself makes the rules.
Amirite?

Also, the leading communist party is the state.
But what if they just go away off the pairliment and just say ok everybody for his own yay.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Liche**

CoolKidX wrote:

Okay Zealot, one more time then.

Just correct me, 'aight?

So, you can't get communism by reformism, because, when a communist party in a pairliment is the biggest, note that its a party, and that they are making the rules, and not every guy for himself makes the rules.
Amirite?

Also, the leading communist party is the state.
But what if they just go away off the pairliment and just say ok everybody for his own yay.

Bah, Communism has no state!

**Zealot_Kommunizma**

CoolKidX wrote:

So, you can't get communism by reformism, because, when a communist party in a pairliment is the biggest, note that its a party, and that they are making the rules, and not every guy for himself makes the rules.
Amirite?

To some extent, you're right.

Communism is a stateless system therefore so long as these mechanisms of the state exist, there's no communism. Also, if the political system is kept, that is a constitutition, laws etc. defacto there's not even the slightest attempt to establish communism. Is just a self-proclaimed communist party leading in a capitalist framework.

Communism can't be achieved by reforms because Communism requires the entire abolishment of the current political, legal and economic framework.

CKX wrote:

Also, the leading communist party is the state.
But what if they just go away off the pairliment and just say ok everybody for his own yay.

Suppose the communist party does have enough political party to literally dominate the politics of a country. As a real communist party its platform would have to be to abolish the same system that granted it that power - abolish the state and do what it could to abolish classes. This, oficially, counts as a revolution not as a reform since the entire framework is being dropped out.

However, it's not just about abolishing the state and such. For such a move to be workable, it should be backed up by a significant share of the population that already counts with enough socio-economic awareness. Such a move without the required awareness wouldn't end up well - it could imply anything from amounting to a simple resignation to simply creating a status of temporal disorder in which the ruling classes would again impose their order.

Many are supporters of using the state as a revolutionary tool. That is, using it to spread the necesary awareness and deprive the bourgeoisie of its power. The problem is that we saw already what happens with such political agenda.

_________________

**Kenzu**

I think it's really bad that even after members have been for so long, they still don't know that communism is a stateless system.

We repeat it again and again.
Either they didn't hear it, which is unlikely, or they don't want to accept it, even though it is the very definition of communism.

_________________
World Republic will prevail!