So the USSR was not a Communist state, in your opinion? What went wrong? If communism is such a great thing, why would anybody want to move away from such a system, having had it in place in the "early days"?
Why are people against communism?
- Thread starter United for Communism
- Start date
So the USSR was not a Communist state, in your opinion? What went wrong? If communism is such a great thing, why would anybody want to move away from such a system, having had it in place in the "early days"?
Is absolute zero cool enough?
Stasis is death.
Sometimes things move quickly, sometimes they move slowly.
Meanwhile, Justice creeps, evil concentrates, and transformations occur.
The question of cost is of such magnitude as to be a ludicrous consideration. To wit, if we follow this path to optimum, a hundred billion suffer and die needlessly, and we risk Armageddon. But if we follow that path to optimum, perhaps the final product will look a little different, and five hundred million people will suffer and die needlessly, despite the lack of warring transition. I refer to the poor of the world, those we need to die for us, as a blood sacrifice to the injustice we have yet to overcome.
I can't tell you how well or badly it's going to go at any point, but I do know what direction means so many have to die needlessly without civilization advancing an inch. Complete with wars and everything, too. Until our extinction.
You know, if we do this right, we can be part of a consistent heritage evolving until the end of the Universe, if that ever comes. We can become, as a species, permanent fixtures in the Universe. If we do it right.
And, yes, this is, in the end, about the species. We will endure, unless we kill ourselves first. Those are pretty much the choices.
Okay, I suppose some killer plague could wipe us out before we leave the solar system, but you get what I'm after.
We do okay as a species. Sometimes it's ugly, but so far we've gotten by. And it can get better. For you and me, the object is to guard against a surrender to the Absurd. We know how this goes. We know how it ends if it ends badly. If a body catch a body, right? That is the ultimate necessity in keeping this thing going.
We will get there, as long as we choose to. And that is the real ultimate goal.
United for Communism said:
Stasis is death.
Sometimes things move quickly, sometimes they move slowly.
Meanwhile, Justice creeps, evil concentrates, and transformations occur.
The question of cost is of such magnitude as to be a ludicrous consideration. To wit, if we follow this path to optimum, a hundred billion suffer and die needlessly, and we risk Armageddon. But if we follow that path to optimum, perhaps the final product will look a little different, and five hundred million people will suffer and die needlessly, despite the lack of warring transition. I refer to the poor of the world, those we need to die for us, as a blood sacrifice to the injustice we have yet to overcome.
I can't tell you how well or badly it's going to go at any point, but I do know what direction means so many have to die needlessly without civilization advancing an inch. Complete with wars and everything, too. Until our extinction.
You know, if we do this right, we can be part of a consistent heritage evolving until the end of the Universe, if that ever comes. We can become, as a species, permanent fixtures in the Universe. If we do it right.
And, yes, this is, in the end, about the species. We will endure, unless we kill ourselves first. Those are pretty much the choices.
Okay, I suppose some killer plague could wipe us out before we leave the solar system, but you get what I'm after.
We do okay as a species. Sometimes it's ugly, but so far we've gotten by. And it can get better. For you and me, the object is to guard against a surrender to the Absurd. We know how this goes. We know how it ends if it ends badly. If a body catch a body, right? That is the ultimate necessity in keeping this thing going.
We watched the tragedy unfold; we did as we were told, we bought and sold. It was the greatest show on Earth, but then it was over. We oohed, and ahhed; we drove our racing cars; we ate our last few jars of caviar. And somewhere out there in the stars, a keen-eyed lookout spied a flickering light: Our last hurrah. Our last hurrah. And when they found our shadows grouped 'round the TV sets, they ran down every lead, they repeated every test. They checked out all the data on their lists, and then the alien anthropologists admitted they were still perplexed. But on eliminating every other reason for our sad demise, they logged the only explanation left: "This species has amused itself to death."
(Roger Waters)
(Roger Waters)
We will get there, as long as we choose to. And that is the real ultimate goal.
That sounds like holy vehm . Yeah Germans use to do that . 1264 or around then I believe , Maybe it was before that ? I don't think it was ? Maybe
100% correct.
perhaps it can. lets gradually work towards removing the human element from the equation and i can easily imagine a time in the future where there is an abundance of resources, modes of production are mechanized and technology ensures that all basic needs are taken care of
sloth is never an issue because no one has to toil
technology promises a better tomorrow just as communism does
perhaps they are inextricably intertwined
true but that does not stop capitalistic societies from flourishing, why would it, a communist system?
i suppose
wisconsin gets to keep its last slab of cheese while kansas unhappily chews on a moldy loaf
in zizek's disputations......"Gandhi was more violent than Hitler"
i like that
pastoral utopias as opposed to my technocratic tendencies
Last edited:
you were saying? you mean like capitalism? lol.
you mean like in capitalism? except capitalists just get others to do it. ya know? ownership class vs working class? of course, it's not put that way exactly. wonder why...
i think the world is heading that direction with some form of quasi communism but it will take several generations, i think.
time frames are best left undefined since there are quite a few variables that can throw a monkey wrench into even the best laid of plans
it's not a plan, i just think it will probably head in that direction or end up there. of course, anything can happen like the earth could be obliterated by an asteroid or something etc.
No man, no problem, said one very notable Communist.
got a monkey on your shoulder , got a monkey on your back . That monkeys getting heavy , got to send that monkey back , your bound to get the blues when monkey gets a hold of you
People shape the past to see what they want, to see only the good as though they have this imaginary world in their heads. Nostalgia of the imagination.
In light of this thread, and stuff... and stuff. I think it would be prudent for United for Communism to undertake an in-depth study of Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed and Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Possessed (commonly translated by certain contemporary party-poopers--whom Le Guin ought to sue with a capitalist's vengeance--as The Devils). And take heed of the resident epileptic--Kirilov, that is, not me.
Alternately, read the former and catch a decent production of Camus's adaptation of the latter.
Alternately, read the former and catch a decent production of Camus's adaptation of the latter.
That's one of my favorite books ever...I have a paperback copy around here somewhere...it's excellent.
And ultimately, this transcends everything else.
The continuation of the species...as boneheaded as so many of its' members are, it could really go places.
What I find most compelling about it is simply how utterly believable it is. I mean, sure, it's "fantasy" fiction (or soft sci-fi), but the actions, the attitudes, and the characters are convincing.
When I'm feeling self-righteous, I like to boast of how I can fit all of my worldly "possessions" into a small vehicle (which I do not have). And yet, while I can imagine sharing much of what I have, there are a few things that are simply mine: ain't noone gonna be "sharing" my folding harmonium (and it's cleverly crafted folding pedal board--for operating the bellows with my feet), or my ultra-minimal folding bicycle, or a few particular books which I hold dear (well, they can be borrowed, so long as they're returned).
But the Anarrans are a particularly extreme example. Even the most radical anarcho-primitivists allow for certain personal (as in, one's own) tools and such.
The Dispossessed is certainly amongst my favorite books, but The Possessed (along with The Idiot) rank slightly higher. Le Guin's tale is far less cautionary than anything by Dostoevsky (who was no fan of "radicals"), and I think I need to be reminded of my own idiocy (in the classical sense, of course) sometimes.
Last edited:
On the upside--and you might want to look into this as well--researching medical types ("doctors") really like to deal with the extreme cases. I haven't gone to a regular doctor in twenty years, but I have visited research facilities in recent years.
Interestingly, the consensus amongst researching neurologists and epileptologists is that for particularly severe focalized seizure disorders, anticonvulsant drugs are about as effective as eating horse shit. They've told me to fuck the meds, and to simply always have a supply of benzos on hand to use as needed--that is, if I have a particularly ominous aura I ought to just down a few clonazepam (alternately, if I'm seizing uncontrollably, someone--assuming there is someone--should just shove some down my throat or up my nose (crushed, of course)).
Anyway...
The status epilepticus wiki says:
So unusual, not rare though, for the medics to see status epilepticus.
WTF???
It seems that many an American medic and nurse AND "doctor" can only recognize a seizure if the person is flopping about on the ground and shitting his pants.
A lot of so-called "medical professionals" remind me a whole lot of religious fundamentalists (or alternately, of scientists who embrace scientism).
Plus que ca change
Oh, I might anyway, and entirely for my own reasons.
I understand your stance, but I'm dubious. The support of the movement came from the people - in 1917 if nothing other - but the ideas of necessity came from the Party and from its leaders. Without a generally accepted and understood philosophy - and I am with Orwell here - a movement of the proletariat can create nothing other than anarchy, or re-establishment of the old system under new management (i.e. Egypt). (Moreover, that vaunted 'Arab spring' (as Myspace Marxism) is and was itself pushed in significant part by other, reactionary political interests (the Brotherhood, if we must name assholes) which are now building their ground work to some kind of fruition on top of already-established interests.) Regrettably, and knowing proles as I do, it cannot be other that a movement of the people that effects such real change would be nothing other than replacing a single Stalin or Lenin or Mao or Pol, even, with a plethora of little Stalins, each carving out their own kingdoms. Unity in dogma requires unity of the human spirit, and there is none of that; it is an intellectual and philosophical tragedy of the commons, and moreso as new (or old) fascisms are being born all the time.
No: as much as I like to believe in humanity, and as much as I deplore the horrors of ages before, there is only one method by which true socialism can be imposed, and it is from strong leadership. That, thus far, has failed. I would in all seriousness elevate myself, but I expect no one else would elevate me.
I have to say that I doubt your perspective here also, and with the wider view. No collection of Chapters-brand Communists is such a unified, lockstep force that it could be called a unity of direction; and neither are our opponents. Some indeed are manipulators - and vile ones - but their polity is, like ours, no more than a collection of frightened individuals, seeking Over The Hill like anyone else.
Also, I'll take a cool upper view on the accusation of "bigotry", given the history of our discussions: sometimes it is true, and sometimes it is a false cap applied by idiots. In the latter case it clouds issues quite well, sometimes so well that it makes one wonder what lessons have been learned of history at all.
Oh, I might anyway, and entirely for my own reasons.
I understand your stance, but I'm dubious. The support of the movement came from the people - in 1917 if nothing other - but the ideas of necessity came from the Party and from its leaders. Without a generally accepted and understood philosophy - and I am with Orwell here - a movement of the proletariat can create nothing other than anarchy, or re-establishment of the old system under new management (i.e. Egypt). (Moreover, that vaunted 'Arab spring' (as Myspace Marxism) is and was itself pushed in significant part by other, reactionary political interests (the Brotherhood, if we must name assholes) which are now building their ground work to some kind of fruition on top of already-established interests.) Regrettably, and knowing proles as I do, it cannot be other that a movement of the people that effects such real change would be nothing other than replacing a single Stalin or Lenin or Mao or Pol, even, with a plethora of little Stalins, each carving out their own kingdoms. Unity in dogma requires unity of the human spirit, and there is none of that; it is an intellectual and philosophical tragedy of the commons, and moreso as new (or old) fascisms are being born all the time.
No: as much as I like to believe in humanity, and as much as I deplore the horrors of ages before, there is only one method by which true socialism can be imposed, and it is from strong leadership. That, thus far, has failed. I would in all seriousness elevate myself, but I expect no one else would elevate me.
I have to say that I doubt your perspective here also, and with the wider view. No collection of Chapters-brand Communists is such a unified, lockstep force that it could be called a unity of direction; and neither are our opponents. Some indeed are manipulators - and vile ones - but their polity is, like ours, no more than a collection of frightened individuals, seeking Over The Hill like anyone else.
Also, I'll take a cool upper view on the accusation of "bigotry", given the history of our discussions: sometimes it is true, and sometimes it is a false cap applied by idiots. In the latter case it clouds issues quite well, sometimes so well that it makes one wonder what lessons have been learned of history at all.
Read-Only's point wasn't about artificiality. It was that Communism erroneously relies on a specific human behavior to be prevelant at all times for all people.
My contention is that Read-Only is making the same error as Marx (an error which was quite commonplace in his day--see Rousseau, et al; though in the passage cited, Marx evinces some awareness of this tendency) in positing some intrinsic, essential "human nature." We can speculate, we can make observations, and we can remark upon certain tendencies--which are by no means universal--but beyond eating, sleeping, defecating, etc., there are not many "qualities" of humans for which one can assert uinversality.