Hi

Poxca wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Well socialists don't take over the government they're fighting against, we abolish it. We don't keep a single trace of this socioeconomic system: we struggle for the abolition of state, money, trade and alienation.

But has this 'abolishment' ever worked?

Yes.

Quote :

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

It was a system that employed capital monopolized by the state... how is that not capitalist?

Mainly because it had a dictator (Much unlike a president). Was originally fought for by the workers, and most of the capitalists during the revolution in these states were purged. 'State Capitalism' always seemed to me as a term just to attempt to re-blame Capitalists who had little to do with the fall of some socialist places. We could do the same by making a comedic type word, per se, State Communist (Lol), where Capitalism was originally implanted but turned moresoever into a failed Socialist state, even though most socialists had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Wait, what? So to be capitalist, one needs to have a President? Shit, Pinochet, that can't be good.
It doesn't matter who fought for something. Certainly, the capitalists couldn't have brought about capitalism anywhere if they were the only ones fighting for it. Perhaps some capitalist states are thus 'degenerated peasants' states'? I really don't see how who fought for something changes it from capitalism to something that isn't.
It doesn't matter if original capitalists were killed or not, because either way, new capitalists came about. When 'state capitalism' is used by Stalinists, it does occasionally seem silly, but we're using it differently here.

Quote :

Would you agree under Lenin socialism was doing well? And perhaps prosperous?

When? During War 'Communism'? The NEP?

Quote :

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

There's no state per say in socialism, at least not as an entity dissociated from the people. Everyone form part of the government directly.

Yes, everyone is combined, blahetc, communist talk. Get to my point, do you, or do you not recognize that their would be a person who would be in charge of leading the peoples choices to the point of when it could dissolve?

No.

Quote :

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Vanguardism is a term to refer to those doctrines that consider people incapable of making their own minds implying that they need a leader to free them.

Im taking this as you feel Trotskyism would not work. Their main difference is the vanguard party.

It depends on the Trot, generally.

Quote :

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I'm also assuming people prefer not to fuck other people up, I'm assuming people prefer to live in an economically stable environment.

Thats greenspeak. Most people "want" this goal but would not work for it, sadly enough.

Will you have cookies with your lifestylist bullshit?

Quote :

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Which are?

-Socialism demands that people work for the good of 'society', often without direct benefit to themselves and sometimes at considerable personal cost.

Wait, what?

Quote :

-In a socialist society, decisions about what is good or bad for a person are made, not by the person, but by the government. It's like being forever a child, taking orders from a distant and uncaring 'parent' who doesn't have the faintest idea what the 'child' wants.

Ugh. "You're an idiot."

Quote :

-There is no way to ever gain up. You will forever be a pawn in with the rest of them and have no choices to ever gain better living standards than the rest.

What?

Quote :

-Socialism in history has almost inevitably lead to a dictatorship.

What socialism?

Quote :

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Well, yeah, there would be no finances in socialism, everyone would be financially at 0.

Which sucks. I prefer to better myself than stay the same as everyone else.

...Well, I'm one of the labour credit advocates, but anyways, Zealot's model, theoretically, would allow you to better yourself, but not through having slaves.

Quote :

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

No one will force those who want to engage in BDSM economics to accept socialism, they're welcome to leave society whenever they want. Just they won't be able to impose their ways on anyone.

I'll be the first one out, before it turns to where so many leave they have to shut the borders down.

TO THE GULAGS WITH YOU!
Seeing as that's what you seem to think socialism is, at least.

Quote :

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Hmm... I wonder who it was. However, we socialists are not fond of parasites, what we do is just to expell them from society.

Or purge them. Heres the quote:
-----------------------

Quote :

Rename
Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:39 pm Topic: Re: [No title]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No starting to get into your preferred field is what i ment, not work early
Kenzu
Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:30 pm Topic: Re: [No title]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In socialist countries, people who are lazy bumbs go to jail!
Starting to work early (before finishing college) is the 100% safe way to stay poor for the rest of your life.

--------------------
Source: I took this from the: Democratic Party of the World Republic: Topic, Kenzu vs Rename. 1st post, the last statement.
And as you told me in a PM, hes the 2nd leader of this forum, is that not ironic?

Kenzu is a silly reformist.

Quote :

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In socialism also, just you're to be expelled from society for slacking off unless you get some people to substain you economically.

But why? Because of a personal choice? Apparentely we don't have the freedom to be lazy and make our own choice to live without work.

Sure you can, and we can make the personal choices not to tolerate parasitism of what we produce. Now, if you can magically produce shit, then you have fun sitting around. Cool? Cool.
Also, seeing as the current schooling system will hopefully be abolished, for we are anarchists and we are totally fucking awesome, you get to laze around in your youth as you wish.

1 how about labor produce a culture of ideas

2 they just group together liKE THe same way the worers did to overthrow them. idk, use your imagentaiton.

3. i know the workers can revolution, i was using that as an example to say why the borugeois can conterevulute angainst the workers. obviously they wont be successful because they areoutnumbered, but they will still have skrimishes and stuff. if your too soft on the bourgeoisies, thaey will revolt

Hoxhaist wrote:

1 how about labor produce a culture of ideas

2 they just group together liKE THe same way the worers did to overthrow them. idk, use your imagentaiton.

3. i know the workers can revolution, i was using that as an example to say why the borugeois can conterevulute angainst the workers. obviously they wont be successful because they areoutnumbered, but they will still have skrimishes and stuff. if your too soft on the bourgeoisies, thaey will revolt

The bourgeoisie can't revolt on their own. At least, one could assume that they're not that stupid.
Unless, of course, we don't treat them as 'softly' as everybody else because they used to be bourgeois.

if you let them do what they want and dont punish them for bad behavieur, they will abuse theyr freedom. all im saying is you have to closely watch them and stop them if they pull any funney business.

Hoxhaist wrote:

if you let them do what they want and dont punish them for bad behavieur, they will abuse theyr freedom. all im saying is you have to closely watch them and stop them if they pull any funney business.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. In your imagination, what do you possibly see this rather small group of people doing?

Hoxhaist wrote:

1 how about labor produce a culture of ideas

It works that way just in art where it eventually turns to be the other way around. Also, this is irrelevant to the point.

Hoxhaist wrote:

2 they just group together liKE THe same way the worers did to overthrow them. idk, use your imagentaiton.

If they're stupid enough to try to get power back by themselves, they'll fail miserably, no need to worry about them.

Hoxhaist wrote:

3. i know the workers can revolution, i was using that as an example to say why the borugeois can conterevulute angainst the workers. obviously they wont be successful because they areoutnumbered, but they will still have skrimishes and stuff. if your too soft on the bourgeoisies, thaey will revolt

And we don't need a state to supress them still. If they begin fucking with society theyll get their asses kicked if not they'll have to drown in the desperation of not having servile masses fulfilling their caprices. Or they can go away and form a little capitalist society isolated from the rest of the people where they can compete and break their back working for the winners until their society stops existing.

if theyre stupid enough to get power back they fail miserably

i know they will, but, if they try to get power back, and we just sit back and watch while they take it and say, dont worry, they are stupid, then they will succeed.

all we need to do, is if they try to get power back, dont let them.

that makes a state. that all

Hoxhaist wrote:

i know they will, but, if they try to get power back, and we just sit back and watch while they take it and say, dont worry, they are stupid, then they will succeed.

How can they take power back when workers themselves are the ones that overthrew them?

Hoxhaist wrote:

all we need to do, is if they try to get power back, dont let them.

that makes a state. that all

We don't need a state because no one will follow them back again. Workers won't free themselves to get back under the yoke.

I WIL SAY THIS ONE LAST TIME

I KNOW THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED

BUT THEY WILL TRY

THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE WORKERS AND THE WORKERS WONT LET THEM SUCCEED EVEN IF THEY TRY

WHEN THE WORKERS ARE NOT LETTING THEM SUCCEED, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A STATE IN THE MARXIST SENSE. ONE CLASS SUPPRESSING ANOTHER.

Hoxhaist wrote:

I WIL SAY THIS ONE LAST TIME

I KNOW THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED

BUT THEY WILL TRY

THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE WORKERS AND THE WORKERS WONT LET THEM SUCCEED EVEN IF THEY TRY

WHEN THE WORKERS ARE NOT LETTING THEM SUCCEED, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A STATE IN THE MARXIST SENSE. ONE CLASS SUPPRESSING ANOTHER.

There's absolutely no supression it's pure indiference to them.

If they decide to take some belligerant action they'll be just collectively suppressed in a proportional way until they desist. If you want to call self-defense "state" then call it state. It would be a pretty short lasting state indeed.

i call it a state, and that is all i will say for this conversation

Hoxhaist wrote:

i call it a state, and that is all i will say for this conversation

Ok, next time a guy shows hostility towards me I'll consider applying him some state.

Stos wrote:

Wait, what? So to be capitalist, one needs to have a President? Shit, Pinochet, that can't be good.
It doesn't matter who fought for something. Certainly, the capitalists couldn't have brought about capitalism anywhere if they were the only ones fighting for it. Perhaps some capitalist states are thus 'degenerated peasants' states'? I really don't see how who fought for something changes it from capitalism to something that isn't.
It doesn't matter if original capitalists were killed or not, because either way, new capitalists came about. When 'state capitalism' is used by Stalinists, it does occasionally seem silly, but we're using it differently here.

No.
What do you mean by: "The capitalists couldn't have brought about capitalism anywere if they were the only ones fighting for it"?

Stos wrote:

When? During War 'Communism'? The NEP?

Overall.

Stos wrote:

No.

Interesting.

Stos wrote:

Kenzu is a silly reformist.

And he has a socialist site? akward...

Poxca wrote:

No.
What do you mean by: "The capitalists couldn't have brought about capitalism anywere if they were the only ones fighting for it"?

Preventing a semantc confusion, in this context "capitalist" is the burgeoise, not "a person supporting" capitalism.

A capitalist is helpless without workers to follow him.

Poxca wrote:

And he has a socialist site? akward...

He considers himself socialist and, if not socialist, he seems to like the idea of socialism he just has his views on how it will be applied, very questionable ones, but still in favour of socialism.

Quote :

Ok, next time a guy shows hostility towards me I'll consider applying him some state.

nice try but please try to understand the definition i am using

its only if one class is domenating another class. not one person domenating one person, ree-ree

Hoxhaist wrote:

nice try but please try to understand the definition i am using

its only if one class is domenating another class. not one person domenating one person, ree-ree

And in socialism the "burgeoise class" stops existing so there's no way to dominate them.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

He considers himself socialist and, if not socialist, he seems to like the idea of socialism he just has his views on how it will be applied, very questionable ones, but still in favour of socialism.

Would you consider him communist than? Since hes a Socialist...

Poxca wrote:

Would you consider him communist than? Since hes a Socialist...

He's not a socialist, just a sympathizer of socialism.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

He's not a socialist, just a sympathizer of socialism.

Alright...
I was confused because hes the owner of a socialist forum, in the communist and socialist groups (Without leading) and from the section of Democratic Party of the World Republic on that Rename vs Kenzu topic hes fighting for Socialism. Thus, i anticipated he was a socialist. Sorry

Edit: Now that i look back on this post it seems sarcastic, its not suppose to be.

Quote :

And in socialism the "burgeoise class" stops existing so there's no way to dominate them.

'

not imedeately. this is idealism utopians

Hoxhaist wrote:

not imedeately. this is idealism utopians

Once the revolution has started the burgeoise class begins to disappear to be erradicated after the end of revolution.

no, they dont imediatley beomce proletarians. they dont just become workers, they dont like to. but, they will realize theres no use to strugling.

Hoxhaist wrote:

no, they dont imediatley beomce proletarians. they dont just become workers, they dont like to. but, they will realize theres no use to strugling.

They won't be burgeoise either.

i dont care what you call it, all i care is thers classes so theres a state.

Hoxhaist wrote:

no, they dont imediatley beomce proletarians. they dont just become workers, they dont like to. but, they will realize theres no use to strugling.

Of course they do. They don't own the means of production, and their relationship with it is the same as everybody else's, so they don't somehow form some separate class. The bourgeoisie do exist, but only where capitalism has not yet been overthrown.