Real Communism can not be reached with reformism

How do you guys think?
And I like a explaintions for what you voted, and I am not sure on this. I want some info on it, like if it can't I can diss leninists on the web!

But seriously though, speak up.

YESH

Maybe. It's been attempted both ways, through reform AND revolution, and has all but failed both times. But I do think it can be acheived, possibly, through reform, if enough like minded people in power do it slowly over a long period of time. Or, they get progressively more left as time goes on, placing into position more and mroe refcorms. It would simpoly take time. Time, everything takes time.

I'll spare a great discussion that could go nowhere by merely sticking to the definition of socialism and logic:

1. Socialism is classless and stateless.

2. Reform implies to keep a determinate system, just changing some things within it. In this case it would mean keeping the state and class-based system and just change some laws and such.

3. If socialism is classless and stateless and reform implies keeping the state and classes, then, socialism can't be reached through reform.

4. If a reformist group took over and its programmes somehow boosted peoples' class awareness making the population understand and embrace socialism and people acted in accordance to this, then, the state and classes would be abolished by the peoples' action, the institutional framework would be abolished, in other words a revolution. Changes inspired by reform would have made people start a revolution.

Socialism, by definition, requires a revolution regardless of its characteristics.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

1. Socialism is classless and stateless.

Did Marx say that? If so, if you can, I like a quote on that.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

2. Reform implies to keep a determinate system, just changing some things within it. In this case it would mean keeping the state and class-based system and just change some laws and such.

Dude, there are no rules on reform, atleast not to chane some things..
I mean cant a communist majorty in a pairlament just abolish the state, like fuck it, we go now. No state.

CKX wrote:

Did Marx say that? If so, if you can, I like a quote on that.

Dear M, Socialism is not a religion and Marx is not its prophet.

I already did a post explaining the etymology of socialism and I would hate to have to repeat myself.

I'll be brief here and then I'll link to that post.

Socialism was first used by the Utopic Socialists, people who believed the Bourgeoisie would morally evolve and give the workers direct control over the means of production. Scientific socialism, Marx's proposal explained that workers need to gain awarenes and take the means of production themselves as it was naive to expect that the entire bourgeoisie would drop their grip on the workers. It proposed that workers didn't wait for teh bourgeoisie to grant them that direct control but to rather take it. To substantiate his position Marx eployed historical materialism.

At a similar time some other guys from working class movements had similar ideas to Marx's and c alled their proposal "communism", being "socialism" the utopic alternative.

CKX wrote:

Dude, there are no rules on reform, atleast not to chane some things..
I mean cant a communist majorty in a pairlament just abolish the state, like fuck it, we go now. No state.

Reform has a definition. Abolishing the system is not reforming it, it's destroying it. In other words a revolution against it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Dear M, Socialism is not a religion and Marx is not its prophet.

This is a insult to the great Marx, thou shall be stoned for this.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Socialism was first used by the Utopic Socialists, people who believed the Bourgeoisie would morally evolve and give the workers direct control over the means of production.

Okay, what the hell? That is some weird ass stuff right there, people actaully thought.. people will give them the means of products? Just like that?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

At a similar time some other guys from working class movements had similar ideas to Marx's and c alled their proposal "communism", being "socialism" the utopic alternative.

So wait, Communism is getting ....
and there is no name for that! You can get ... by socialism or communism, right?
Anyways, so communism get it by doing it self, and socialism is waiting till it comes to them, which will never happen.

Quote :

reform has a definition. Abolishing the system is not reforming it, it's destroying it. In other words a revolution against it.

Then what is it called to abolish a system.. from within? Like going into the parilament. And why is it not possible to be a socialist party and just say the state does not exist anymore, and abolish it. That can be possible.

CoolKidX wrote:

Okay, what the hell? That is some weird ass stuff right there, people actaully thought.. people will give them the means of products? Just like that?

These utopic socialists were bourgeoise themselves and many of them did try to give their means of production to workers.

CKX wrote:

So wait, Communism is getting ....
and there is no name for that! You can get ... by socialism or communism, right?
Anyways, so communism get it by doing it self, and socialism is waiting till it comes to them, which will never happen.

Ehm, no.

Socialism and communism are synonims. I'll try to be brief and clear:

The term socialism was first used by the utopic socialists to refer to their idea of a society with no state and no social classes. They believe this could be achieved through the good will of the bourgeoise. Many people within workers' movements and Marx though of this idea as naïve. Marx developed the concept "Scientific Socialism" which proposed the workers to take over the means of production instead of expecting the bourgeoise to just grant them. Others developed an identical concept under the name "communism".

Marx and Engels, to dissociate themselves from the utopic socialists embraced the term "communism".

Once Utopic Socialism withered away, Scientific Socialism was the only interpretation of socialism left so Socialism and Communism were used interchangeably as synonims since then.

CKX wrote:

Then what is it called to abolish a system.. from within? Like going into the parilament. And why is it not possible to be a socialist party and just say the state does not exist anymore, and abolish it. That can be possible.

As I said, that is a revolution, not a reform. If the state is effectively nullified and with it the whole political system, then the system is destroyed as opposed to reformed.

Reform implies to preserve the same system and do some changes. Revolution is to destroy it whatever it is the means used to that end which I conted will be multiple.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

As I said, that is a revolution, not a reform. If the state is effectively nullified and with it the whole political system, then the system is destroyed as opposed to reformed.

So you don't need guns, you just need.. vote's.
Hoppa, and with the votes you get seats and with enough seats you can lead a country, SNAP. That is gonna take long without a coalition, speaking from a constutial monarchy then. Well if you make people wise what communism is they will sure vote for them, suuurree, only gonna take around more then 100 years.

Also, when Hitler changed the state to a dictatorship, that's a revolution to?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Reform implies to preserve the same system and do some changes. Revolution is to destroy it whatever it is the means used to that end which I conted will be multiple.

Some changes? No.. not really, some changes can be huge ass, and there is a diffrence of people who think tis a big or a small change.

Quote :

It's been attempted both ways, through reform AND revolution, and has all but failed both times.

Sorry, but that's pure bullocks. To claim that a revolution failed is to say that it was intrinsically flawed, and not extrinsically sabotaged or subdued by ruling class interests. This was not the case in old russia, spain or ukraine.

This isn't even debatable when we consider what reformism implies, that is, working within the framework of the current system (that'd be statism and capitalism). Were some president to make laws legalizing expropriation and collectivism, that would still need to be backed by revolutionary acts, namely: expropriation and collectivism.

Quote :

So you don't need guns, you just need.. vote's.
Hoppa, and with the votes you get seats and with enough seats you can lead a country, SNAP. That is gonna take long without a coalition, speaking from a constutial monarchy then. Well if you make people wise what communism is they will sure vote for them, suuurree, only gonna take around more then 100 years.

It's possible to do things this way, i suppose, but it isn't desirable and is quite farfetched. This would necessarily mean that the political movement was backed by popular consensus, i.e. a grassroots movement; if that was the case, there's no reason this grassroots movement should wallow in apathy while their "representatives" in government play the game of the bourgeoisie and the reigning politicos. With such a movement it's possible to effect significant change in a very short period of time.

Quote :

Also, when Hitler changed the state to a dictatorship, that's a revolution to?

No, it was simply a change of power from one bourgeois politician (or group) to another. It was still bourgeois, it was still capitalist, it was just more overtly violent and imperialist. That's hardly a significant change.

Quote :

Some changes? No.. not really, some changes can be huge ass, and there is a diffrence of people who think tis a big or a small change.

Reality is not based on perception. Our perceptions can influence reality, but this isn't to the point. Capitalism implies certain material relations, and statism implies certain power relations, and those cannot be changed by reform, by its very nature. Also, i don't think ZK said anything about the quality of the changes reform can make, but used the word "some", referring to a quantity (though again, it's not to the point).

CoolKidX wrote:

So you don't need guns, you just need.. vote's.

We'll most likely need guns, since cappies will fight back once the system is nullified even if done in a pacific way.

CKX wrote:

Hoppa, and with the votes you get seats and with enough seats you can lead a country, SNAP. That is gonna take long without a coalition, speaking from a constutial monarchy then.

Which is why "playing the game" is just a secondary front for us, complementary at best. We are against the institutions, we propose their dissolution and we don't trust them but we lose nothing by also infiltrating them.

CKX wrote:

Well if you make people wise what communism is they will sure vote for them, suuurree, only gonna take around more then 100 years.

As I said, it's just complementary. Besides I was just clearing up semantics. It's the "front of least concern" shall we even consider it. We believe in direct organization with the workers.

And it would take more than 100 years just if people are extremely stupid (which is not the case) or the cappies literally institute mind control.

CKX wrote:

Also, when Hitler changed the state to a dictatorship, that's a revolution to?

To a great degree he just reformed the system. He preserved the state, bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, proletariat framework.

CKX wrote:

Some changes? No.. not really, some changes can be huge ass, and there is a diffrence of people who think tis a big or a small change.

You evidently didn't get what I said. "Preserving the system while doing changes". They can be some, many, big, small, it's irrelevant. If the same framework is preserved it is reformism, if the framework is destroyed it's revolution.

Real communism is impossable anyway(not thayt that matters here), but is more likely in a revolution becuse then they can just kill the ppl that don't think like them and all ppl that are "bad", sure there will be about 100 million ppl left on the planetz but I don't think my fellow communist forumer give a shit as long as they are all communist. And I'm not back, just bored to death.

LOL.
I had a laugh at that.

I are serius cat here

Some stalnists or just angry commies might do it for that tho. That can be true.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Dear M, Socialism is not a religion and Marx is not its prophet.

Religion promises an unrealistic world if you do exacly as it says and condems all othere thinking and when it fails it blames the otheres for it's failure to deliver. Pretty alike to me just no G word.

mattabesta wrote:

Real communism is impossable anyway

Like you reaching pubescence?

Anyway, you're simply wrong since it has existed; leave it to someone of your intellectual deficiency to ignore history.

Quote :

but is more likely in a revolution becuse then they can just kill the ppl that don't think like them and all ppl that are "bad", sure there will be about 100 million ppl left on the planetz but I don't think my fellow communist forumer give a shit as long as they are all communist.

Typical drone who can't but think through the mind of someone else.

Quote :

Religion promises an unrealistic world if you do exacly as it says and condems all othere thinking and when it fails it blames the otheres for it's failure to deliver. Pretty alike to me just no G word.

Ah, now i get it, you're still sore from all the mental rape you endured during your time here. Understandable.

you don't really have an argument there..... you just insulted me.

mattabesta wrote:

I are serius cat here

Phucking poser.

isn't that the same one as in your avatar?

mattabesta wrote:

you don't really have an argument there..... you just insulted me.

Because there was nothing of substance to respond to.

You're only substantive statement was "real communism is impossible" which is simply false, as proven by accumulated experience, history.

What, do you want me to engage in a page-long polemic against your measly, childish banter? It could be done, but there's no reason i should waste my time.

Communism requires a revolution, with reform you could get something similar to the affects of communism, but it wouldnt be Communism.

Black_Cross wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

you don't really have an argument there..... you just insulted me.

Because there was nothing of substance to respond to.

You're only substantive statement was "real communism is impossible" which is simply false, as proven by accumulated experience, history.

What, do you want me to engage in a page-long polemic against your measly, childish banter? It could be done, but there's no reason i should waste my time.

there is still a lack of communist cuntries....... but I still beleve it's possible, becuse you can't disprove communism.

there is still lack of proof of god....but I still belive in him, becuse you can't disprove god.

and also fuck you for thinking age has donkey boner to do with this.

mattabesta wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

you don't really have an argument there..... you just insulted me.

Because there was nothing of substance to respond to.

You're only substantive statement was "real communism is impossible" which is simply false, as proven by accumulated experience, history.

What, do you want me to engage in a page-long polemic against your measly, childish banter? It could be done, but there's no reason i should waste my time.

there is still a lack of communist cuntries.......

I agree; and?

Quote :

but I still beleve it's possible, becuse you can't disprove communism.

Right, just like you can't disprove dinosaurs existed, because their is historical evidence of their existence; In communism's case, it was existant and functioning more to the pleasure of its population (i.e. everyone involved in the collectivized economy [fifty percent of the total industry in spain]) than it's capitalist counterpart in Spain, about 74 years ago. It only ended because it was overtaken by force of violence.

Quote :

there is still lack of proof of god....but I still belive in him, becuse you can't disprove god.

Right, but god didn't ever exist to our knowledge, communism did, in quite some different forms.

So you're point is?

Quote :

and also fuck you for thinking age has donkey boner to do with this.

I don't, that just made me laugh.

Socialism simply by its inherent character is revolutionary. How else, but through revolution, can it be brought about?

Keep in mind that the "revolution" doesn't have to be this romantic and bloody tirade of angry bucolic running around murdering filthy rich people and looting and pillaging and what have you. I'd like to think that Socialism's "revolutionary" tendencies point only to the fact that Socialism requires dramatic changes in the way a country's economy functions (i.e. how it distributes goods) and how its economy is organized (i.e. how it appropriates means). That is all a revolution is: a dramatic change in the way that things are done, and I would have to argue that such dramatic changes don't necessarily need violent means to bring them about.

To be sure, though, I'd have to state, rather firmly, that Socialism - and especially not Anarchism or Communism - can not be brought about through reform. Though I will admit, as Chomsky does, that reformist movements reflect a society's openness to change and willingness to progress, but that's all. Reform doesn't offer real change; only the faint glimmer of what may be.