- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 28,152
- Reaction score
- 2
There are many on the left who want communism no doubt. There are dressing up their agenda as Socialism-lite but in reality the red shirts never left.
A West Point Grad Wrote 'Communism Will Win' in His Cap
- Thread starter Lord Coke
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 42,374
- Reaction score
- 5
Is Kaep pro communism?
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 28,908
- Reaction score
- 15,212
Capitalism failed the working classes, the exact people that Communism appeals to.
There's also the point that we've never seen a true Communist state, Soviet authoritarianism just isn't it. People who point to the failures of states like Venezuela, Cuba, and China (now profoundly capitalist) ignore that external pressures led to their decline, not an inherent shortcoming of Marxist philosophy.
The truth is that as Capitalist societies continue to mechanize as an excuse to eschew human labor, the working classes will become more and more disaffected, and look to solidify their rights in ways only tangentially tried in the past. You see it now with Obamacare and the opinion swing toward single payer. When you try and kill the golden goose, people are going to fight even harder to protect it. Workers' rights are becoming en vogue again, after many many decades of chipping away at protections that existed at one time in this country. The swing is going to be particularly hard this time around. It's really only a matter of time.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 18,237
- Reaction score
- 12,100
I do not see how capitalism failed the working class.
We have seen a true Communist state, as far as how one can be upheld while taking into account the realities of mankind. We cannot enforce egalitarianism except through authoritarianism. We, the humans ourselves, are not equal. One man can be more talented than the other, and he will feel entitled to more than the other. The natural impulse and drive for competition, cannot be suppressed, except through force.
The capitalist system, atleast attempts to address this. The communist system, is founded upon a lie. Therefore it must be maintained by suppressing the truth.
From capitalism, we may proceed to something resembling a more fair and just system. From communism, we cannot.
Last edited:
^^^ Proof the left lives in a fantasy.
Sir, you do realize capitalism has pulled more people from poverty, to the working class, to the middle class, than any other ideology in history?
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2011
- Messages
- 53,883
- Reaction score
- 30,877
Isn't it a rather curious coincidence though that every major Marxist political experiment has failed?
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2009
- Messages
- 60,822
- Reaction score
- 30,651
The timeline doesn't add up. He enlisted Option 40 as an 11X in 2010 and somehow graduated West Point in 2016. How is that possible?
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 28,908
- Reaction score
- 15,212
The "realities of mankind" are that everyone has base needs. Communist societies simply attempt to address those needs through expenditures of social capital from the masses to those who go without. It's an economic philosophy, attempting to "smooth out" inequalities only go so far as the base economic needs of disaffected populations. That's the entire basis of a Communist society, so i'm finding it extremely hard to understand how you can say that Communism fails to address it. If anything, the profit motive (the basest element of Capitalist philosophy), ignores the needs of the individual in favor of the needs of the corporation. As we're seeing now, when the scales are tipped too far in favor of the corporation (wage suppression, automation, at-will employment) you risk alienating workers, which pushes them toward egalitarian philosophies like Communism. Capitalism takes this inequality as a necessary result of a system where the "wheat is separated from the chaff", Communist societies understand that there's more than enough to go around, it's just a matter of how to allocate it. You'd be hard pressed to say that command economies don't work when all inputs are available, so why is it so hard all of a sudden when you attach the name Communism to it?
This is abundantly clear when we discuss automation with respect to low paying, working class jobs. You guys say "fuck em all" for wanting a living wage and replace them with robots. As capitalists, you're well within your right to do so. However, for those of us not so attached to capitalist dogma, we see the storm brewing on the horizon for those disaffected workers as they're increasingly drawn toward Marxist philosophy. That's why Communism is being more accepted, our emphasis on "more and more productivity" while fucking over workers is pushing our economics left at an alarming pace. Keep alienating workers, and 'all of a sudden' (to you), you're going to have a problem on your hands.
You do realize that Capitalism is the only economic philosophy that relies on those class distinctions in order to exist at all right? That's like me saying that Communism is the only economic philosophy to give power directly to workers, well no shit, anything else you wanna brag about?
What you call a "fantasy" is simply a lack of foresight on your part. It's not my fault you don't see the technological revolution on the horizon.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2014
- Messages
- 11,766
- Reaction score
- 5,303
No I would not and I also believe his actions were inappropriate. However on the basis of his ideology alone I hold no animus toward him. I don't agree with communism but his belief alone doesn't mean I would automatically rule him out of service. His actions in behalf of those beliefs while representing the military, and by extension me as a citizen who relies on his service, are what would inform my opinion.
Ultimately his actions will be judged by the only court of opinion that matters in this situation, his services chain of command.
Personally I think it was a foolish decision on his part especially given the circumstance.
R
ripskater
Guest
I think he wore a Fidel Castro shirt.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 42,374
- Reaction score
- 5
Yeah but has he actually talked about communism in an economic sense?
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 39,716
- Reaction score
- 19,463
Hmmm, will the rise of automation lead to resurgence of the luddite movement or an influx in the communism movement? Probably both -- but really, those of us who are set to benefit from an autmoated world such as transhumanist and technocrats are going to be in a great position the cull the herd of the undesirables (unskilled, uneducated, indecorous, criminals, etc)
So, let the revolution happen -- the new third estate won't have 99.9% numbers and the guillotine won't be the pinnacle of weaponry.
So, let the revolution happen -- the new third estate won't have 99.9% numbers and the guillotine won't be the pinnacle of weaponry.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 15,654
- Reaction score
- 2,471
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 28,908
- Reaction score
- 15,212
I think it's more of a curious coincidence that in the time of widespread Communist rule, you also had an abundant number of Capitalist countries essentially conducting an economic and philosophical war against those Communist countries. You can definitely point to the failure of Marxist political experiments, but ignoring the efforts of Capitalist countries is akin to ignoring the actual cancer affecting a cancer patient. Trotsky had a good observation regarding this phenomenon:
The peasantry thus played a gigantic role in the Russian Revolution. It will also play a great role in other countries, for example, in France where the peasantry still constitutes a bigger half of the population. But those comrades are mistaken who assume that the peasantry is capable of playing an independent, leading role in the revolution, on equal rights, so to speak, with the proletariat. If we conquered in the civil war, it was not solely and not so much because of the correctness of our military strategy. It was rather because of the correctness of our political strategy on which our military operations were invariably based throughout the civil war. We did not forget for a moment that the basic task of the proletariat consisted in attracting the peasantry to its side. However, we did not do it after the SR fashion. The latter, as is well known, enticed the peasants by dangling an independent democratic role before them and then betrayed them hand and foot to the landlords. We were positive that the peasantry constitutes a vacillating mass which is as a whole incapable of an independent, and all the less so, leading revolutionary role. By being resolute in our actions we made the peasant masses understand that there was only one choice open to them – the choice between the revolutionary proletariat on the one side, and the officers of noble birth at the head of the counter-revolution, on the other. Failing this resoluteness on our part in tearing down the democratic partition, the peasantry would have remained confused, continuing to vacillate between the different camps and the different shades of “democracy“ – and the revolution would have ineluctably perished. The democratic parties, with the Social Democracy in the van – and there is no doubt that the same situation in Western Europe, too, will arise – acted invariably as the bell-wethers of the counter-revolution. Our experience on this score is conclusive in its character. You know, Comrades, that a few days ago our Red Army occupied Vladivostok. This occupation liquidates the last link in the long chain of the civil war fronts during the last half of a decade. Apropos of the occupation of Vladivostok by the Red troops, Milyukov, the well known leader of the Russian Liberal Party, has written in his Paris daily a few historico-philosophic lines, which I am prepared to term classical. In an article dated November 7, he sketches briefly the imbecilic and ignominious, but steadfast role of the party of democracy. I quote:
“This sad history – it has always been a sad history (Laughter) begins with a solemn proclamation of the complete unanimity of the anti-Bolshevik front. Merkulov (he was the chief of the counter-revolution in the Far East) acknowledged that the ‘non-socialists’ (that is, the Black Hundred elements) owed their victory in great measure to the democratic elements. But the support of democracy”, continues Milyukov, “was used by Merkulov only as a tool for overthrowing the Bolsheviks. Once this was achieved, the power was seized by these elements who in the main regarded the democrats as concealed Bolsheviks.”
This passage which I have just called classic may seem trite. As a matter of fact, it only repeats what has more than once been said by Marxists. But you must recall that this now is being said by the liberal Milyukov – six years after the Revolution. It ought to be borne in mind that he is here drawing the balance sheet of the political role of the Russian democracy on a vast arena – from the Finnish Gulf to the shores of the Pacific. This is what happened in the case of Kolchak, next with Denikin, and then with Yudenich. This is what happened during the English, French and American occupations. That is how it was during Petlura’s reign in the Ukraine. All along our frontiers the one and the same wearisomely monotonous phenomenon kept recurring. The democracy – the Mensheviks and the SRs – drove the peasantry into the arms of reaction, the latter seized power, unmasked itself completely, thrust the peasants aside, whereupon the victory of the Bolsheviks followed. Among the Mensheviks there ensued the chapter of repentance. But not for long – till the next temptation. And thereupon, the same history was repeated in the same sequence in some other – theatre of the civil war. First, betrayal, and discredited as it appears to be, we can nevertheless be sure that it will be repeated by the Social Democrats in all countries whenever the proletariat’s struggle for power becomes fierce. The primary task of the proletarian revolutionary party in all countries is to be implacably then semi-repentance. Yet, extremely simple as this mechanics is, and resolute once the issue is transferred to the arena of civil war.
“This sad history – it has always been a sad history (Laughter) begins with a solemn proclamation of the complete unanimity of the anti-Bolshevik front. Merkulov (he was the chief of the counter-revolution in the Far East) acknowledged that the ‘non-socialists’ (that is, the Black Hundred elements) owed their victory in great measure to the democratic elements. But the support of democracy”, continues Milyukov, “was used by Merkulov only as a tool for overthrowing the Bolsheviks. Once this was achieved, the power was seized by these elements who in the main regarded the democrats as concealed Bolsheviks.”
This passage which I have just called classic may seem trite. As a matter of fact, it only repeats what has more than once been said by Marxists. But you must recall that this now is being said by the liberal Milyukov – six years after the Revolution. It ought to be borne in mind that he is here drawing the balance sheet of the political role of the Russian democracy on a vast arena – from the Finnish Gulf to the shores of the Pacific. This is what happened in the case of Kolchak, next with Denikin, and then with Yudenich. This is what happened during the English, French and American occupations. That is how it was during Petlura’s reign in the Ukraine. All along our frontiers the one and the same wearisomely monotonous phenomenon kept recurring. The democracy – the Mensheviks and the SRs – drove the peasantry into the arms of reaction, the latter seized power, unmasked itself completely, thrust the peasants aside, whereupon the victory of the Bolsheviks followed. Among the Mensheviks there ensued the chapter of repentance. But not for long – till the next temptation. And thereupon, the same history was repeated in the same sequence in some other – theatre of the civil war. First, betrayal, and discredited as it appears to be, we can nevertheless be sure that it will be repeated by the Social Democrats in all countries whenever the proletariat’s struggle for power becomes fierce. The primary task of the proletarian revolutionary party in all countries is to be implacably then semi-repentance. Yet, extremely simple as this mechanics is, and resolute once the issue is transferred to the arena of civil war.
Europe has offset the advance of Marxist philosophy due to embracing social traditions that serve to benefit working classes, even to the detriment of ruling classes (and the state itself in many cases). They effectively took the "best" parts of Marxist philosophy and used it to better their societies for the benefit of potentially disaffected classes. This is good. The US has done the opposite. We extended those provisions, and slowly chipped away at them until they were but a shadow of themselves. Ironically, our gripping of power has done nothing more than drive disaffected populations to Marxist philosophy and hasten our own economic shift. Propaganda has done a great deal to slow down this transition, but it can only do so much when presented with tangible wrongs inflicted by our increasingly more unjust system.
Last edited:
D
Devout Pessimist
Guest
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 15,654
- Reaction score
- 2,471
Hahahahahaahhaahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa
Perhaps you should call Venezuela and let them know.
There are classes, frankly because there are differences in work ethic and intelligence, as well as life choices. If your ancestor had great work ethic or intelligence, and made good life choices, chances are you're well off. Also, money isn't the measure of success to everyone.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,761
- Reaction score
- 4,984
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2009
- Messages
- 28,908
- Reaction score
- 15,212
Pray tell, what's caused the issues in Venezuela? You seem like you have a grip on them, educate me. Be sure to go into the effect oil prices (and the games OPEC countries played to manipulate global oil prices) had on their economic situation, and how Maduro differs from Chavez economically.
I eagerly await your in depth analysis.
R
ripskater
Guest
I don't know.
