Your political view

Stos wrote:

Pedrodesa wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Pedrodesa wrote:

but we do not have the reformist socialism of Allende?

It was not socialism. Nor it managed to stay more than 3 years up.

i dont undestand...

Allende wasn't a socialist, he was just a tinkering reformist.
Also, the old reformists who wanted socialism as an end, but wanted a slow path through reforms, could be considered socialists, but they also theorized that capitalism wouldn't have more crises, and were... Ehm... Wrong.

hummm
thanks about the explanation!
but ONLY a armed revolution can transform the society in socialism?

Pedrodesa wrote:

hummm
thanks about the explanation!
but ONLY a armed revolution can transform the society in socialism?

The matter is not on wether it is armed or not. The revolution must imply the destruction of this system from the very foundations. That is taking the power directly and disregarding the legal system imposed by the burgeoise. The problem with that is that in most cases the burgeoise will try to employ force to obligue workers into exploitation again and that's why the revolution in most cases would certainly imply some violence.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

I think socialism was originally a transition stage so technically as a socialist you are either a revolutionary(Communist) or a Reformist (social democrat)

No. Reformism doesn't lead to socialism. As a socialist you're necesarily revolutionary.


Socialism is when the workers have taken the means of production and stablished a real workers' democracy. When it's perfected into an egalitarian society it becomes communism.

I was saying that ppl that say thhey are socalist are just a bit confused and are eithere.

mattabesta wrote:

I was saying that ppl that say thhey are socalist are just a bit confused and are eithere.

Well some of those that claim to be socialist are indeed confused.

Democratic Stalinist...Figure that one out.

revolution wrote:

Democratic Stalinist...Figure that one out.

My political stance until last year.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

revolution wrote:

Democratic Stalinist...Figure that one out.

My political stance until last year.

You where Stalinist?.








PS what are you n.ow.?

revolution wrote:

Democratic Stalinist...Figure that one out.

hahahhaha
DEMOCRATIC STALINISM?
is a possible concept?

revolution wrote:

Democratic Stalinist...Figure that one out.

the people choosed stalin so yes.... they believed he was the right man! and he was

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Pedrodesa wrote:

Stos wrote:

Pedrodesa wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Pedrodesa wrote:

but we do not have the reformist socialism of Allende?

It was not socialism. Nor it managed to stay more than 3 years up.

i dont undestand...

Allende wasn't a socialist, he was just a tinkering reformist.
Also, the old reformists who wanted socialism as an end, but wanted a slow path through reforms, could be considered socialists, but they also theorized that capitalism wouldn't have more crises, and were... Ehm... Wrong.

hummm
thanks about the explanation!
but ONLY a armed revolution can transform the society in socialism?

In Principles of Communism, Engels lays out the following as one of them:

Quote :

— 16 —
Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

So no, revolution must not necessarily be violent, but it is more likely that it would be so.

Quote :

BTW i get the chicks, people love me

Considering who Svetlana is...gross.

Pedrodesa wrote:

revolution wrote:

Democratic Stalinist...Figure that one out.

hahahhaha
DEMOCRATIC STALINISM?
is a possible concept?

That's the point!

Stalin love girls

Don't think he was a pedo, though.

Pedrodesa wrote:

hahahhaha
DEMOCRATIC STALINISM?
is a possible concept?

Yeah it is possible if you believe in something as paradoxic as a democratic dictatorship.

How would such a thing work? Well, there are two parties: The state composed by a ruling vanguard which is conformed by the cultural, scientific and politic revolutionary elite and then there is the working people that conforms a second party.

How would these parties interact in this hypothetic system? Well basically it would be the state enforcing its projects in accordance to what the people demands as long as the state cannot veto said popular demands in which case the state keeps enforcing its projects unaltered. How can the state veto the popular demands? Through intellectual and logic authority, in theory. That is, if a popular demand can be proven counterproductive to society's development or logically incongruent, in other words, disproven by the state, the state will try to convince the majourity. If a large majority fails to support the state agenda even after their claims have been proven invalid from different perspectives of intellectual authority, the state supported by a large minority (≤49%) will enforce the agenda.

What's democratic about this? Well, in theory, the people already know the implications of the dictatorial agenda and know they're good to them but for any (non-justified) reason they oppose so the state forces them into experiencing that good. The expected result is that those who previously opposed will change their mind after experiencing the benefits of the enforced agenda being thus initially non-democratic but democratic after enforced. That's how this theory supports its democraticity.

The individuals conforming the state, within this society, wouldn't count with any priviledge over general society in terms of living standards, that is they wouldn't have rights to better housing, better food etc. They would live equally. The only special characteristic would be the right to excert itself through logical argumentation.

The system decribed above is one form of it.

Another "more democratic" form would be the next: The state existing as an entity with the exclusive function of managing and enforcing popular demands. That is, the state doesn't have force by itself nor an agenda of itself. It's whole agenda is determined democratically by the people.

Once an agenda has been decided by the people, the state serves as an institution to enforce popular demands and manage them. For example, if people have determined that murderers be executed then the state is the institution in charge of conducting said execution. If the people have determined that abortions are unacceptable, the state will be the institution surveiling that no abortion is practiced and is as well in charge of enforcing the punishment determined by people. If people have determined that there should be cameras monitoring traffic and that no car should exceed 100 km/h in urban areas and 160km/h in highway, the state will be the institution in charge of sactioning infractors as well according to the sanctions determined by people. If people have declared drugs are legal and has set a maximum ammount per person of certain drug, the state will be in charge of making sure no one gets more than said ammount and will be in charge of the distribution. And so on.

That's how something like a "democratic" dictatorship or a "dictatorship of the majority" could exist at least according to its proponents.

That's the political system I used to support.

revolution wrote:

Democratic Stalinist...Figure that one out.

Does..... Not...... Compute........ *blows up*
Wtf? Democratic stalinism? That makes no sence at all.....

revolution wrote:

Don't think he was a pedo, though.

Or had a thing for his own daughter.