Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: On Communism

  1. #1
    Senior Member noot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toontown
    Posts
    329
    Blog Entries
    5

    On Communism

    On Communism


    1. Corporations are the modern day's equivalent plantations.
    2. Wages are a form of slavery.
    3. Corporate entities have only one reason to exist. And that is the accumulation of riches by any means under the law. And it needs to be stated that big corporations make those laws directly and indirectly. Donations to politicians are proffered for the sole purpose bribing them to enact laws to their benefit. That is the direct approach. The indirect approach is still less ethical than the former. It has to do, again, with spending out of corporate profits on advertisements, political action committees, rigged polls, PR firms. In effect the indirect approach is simply the widest possible dissemination of capitalist propaganda.


    ON COMMUNISM

    This thread concerns the Communist Party beginning with the Revolution of 1905 and the reasons that it was a still born ideology. I'll be focusing on personalities rather than inherent contradictions in making the case that Communism, as an alternative to Corporatism, after liquidating bourgeois sensibilities and moralisms, replaced them with nothing of greater import than reactionary opposition to the rich and the ugliness of nascent, as well as full blown, personality cults.

    That said, Communism, socialism, and anarchism, will always hold a sway over the strivings of intelligent young people in any country at any time. It was Jonas Savimbi of the Angolan Unita party, who said in the early 70"s:
    "If you're not a Marxist by the time you're twenty- you're not very bright. If you're still a Marxist by the time you're 40- you're not too bright either."

    That was also true of myself. Even knowing better, as a youth I supported such cut throats as Lenin and Stalin. Even Trotsky, who was perhaps less of a ******* than the other two, still pursued policies of liquidation against the perceived enemies of the Revolution: using the Red Army to brutally repress the Anarchists, for instance. (Liquidation is a good Commie word.)

    In 1920, Bertrand Russell, in my opinion the greatest humanitarian of modern times and also among the most erudite philosophers of the 20th century, came away with the following impression of Lenin after a long meeting between the two in the Kremlin. Russell, a Marxist himself at the time, found the unquestioned leader of the Revolution to be a humorless brute. Russell said, "When I first met Lenin...my most vivid impressions were of bigotry and Mongolian cruelty. When I put a question to him about socialism in agriculture, he explained with glee how he had incited the poorer peasants against the richer ones, 'and they soon hanged them from the nearest tree-- ha ha ha!' His guffaw at the thoughts of those massacred made my blood run cold."

    Once Communism became infected by this amoral transcendental suspension of basic human kindness and understanding, it was doomed to failure. And note that the man responsible for the personification of that amoral worldview was the founder of the Soviet Communist Party, himself! The Revolution, from the moment that Lenin assumed leadership was doomed to failure. (That conclusion is my own and not Bertrand Russell's.) Russell believed that once the excesses of the Revolution were eclipsed by pure Marxist humanitarianism a new and educated and ethical Proletariat would assume its rightful place as the fundamental guarantor Natural, Classless Democracy, i.e. rule by the people, supplanting the rule of God and Church, Ethnic bigotry and privilege, Capital, and feudal Corporatism. He may have been right in that assessment but the fact remains that vendetta driven reaction and Lenin's personality, plus a lack of imaginative policy aside from reaction, precluded that dream from ever coming to be. The initial problem, of course, the worm in the center of the peach, the problem mentioned by hundreds of historians and polemicists over the course of time, was that Marx never envisioned a peasant uprising in the first place. The Communist Revolution was, according to Marx, supposed to be the synthesis of opposing forces, a Material Dialectic, and would necessarily first manifest itself in the industrialized, fixed-class societies, of England and France. Certainly not in Russia. There's no point in going into the reasons that Dialectical Materialism was not considered applicable, yet, to Russia- that it could not be, in 1905 or 1917 or even 1939, a Russian process; (that proposition been beaten to death for the last 150 years by historians and economists to the extent that the proposition, per se, is considered proved. If that comment doesn't satisfy you, feel free to do your own research and get back to me with any objections.) But the sorry truth is that indeed Marxist Revolution never could adapt to Russia or its successor, the USSR. All that remained of the Revolution after the Leninist/Stalinist usurpation, (yes I'll use the U word,) were the slogans. Unfortunately.

    The Marxist Principle that the Communist Party must act as the vanguard of the Proletarian Revolution (an axiom that is central to Marxist thought and one never abandoned by any Marxist or Communist to this day) invited an abysmal arrogance and conceit into the Russian Revolution ( a Revolution that, as I mentioned, was at best an ironic aberration. This irony was unrecognized by the Bolsheviks. That- or this truth was either disingenuously denied or, more likely, never understood by the Bolsheviks to start with. And that misappropriation of History has continued even to this day. Revolution necessarily and ineluctably follows a Platonist continuum, according to Marx, and is therefore the necessary i.e. inevitable outcome of Natural Law as applied to industrial society. Those who succeed the Czars also had the obligation to interpret and to guide the applications of that natural law. Marxism is at once an economic and moral theory. And as applied to Russia it was only half right. The ethical pronouncements of Marxism could have informed the new Soviet Union even as the economic principles could not. The inequalities predicated on class are, to my mind, undeniable and a true shame to humanity. So I agree with Marx on that. This ethical set was not discovered by Marx, but rather predated his theories by thousands of years. The Marxist Revolutionary ethical constraints do not flow from the revolution itself. Rather they are system of presuppositions identified by most religious and moralistic philosophers as disparate as Mohammed, Moses, Kant, Jesus, Socrates, Buddha, and the American and French Revolutions. Of all the largest faiths in the world it is only Hinduism that denies these principles concerning the arbitrary and inherently unjust division of societies into classes of the entitled as opposed to the permanently dispossessed. And even India is dealing with nullifying religious categories by legislation.

    All the forgoing is just a statement that the Communists who managed to gain power through revolution have ****** up, bigtime- with possible exception of Cuba.
    ©General Striker 2011
    "Toon, with an attitude like that I'm surprised you're not in jail". Brother Dankk

  2. #2
    Senior Member noot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toontown
    Posts
    329
    Blog Entries
    5
    [

    © General Striker News Service

    Econ 101

    The US is engaged in a de facto repudiation of debt. That ought to be clear by now. How is this possible and what does it matter? It's possible because capital is essentially amoral. Debt has no other reality than as a monetary instrument regardless of the importunate protests of the lender. Debt is no more than a matter of record keeping. It only becomes overbearing and consequential when it has become imbued with the quality of moral obligation- which is essentially nothing more than a refutation of reality. This is so because money is conjured out of thin air and depends for its value on nothing more substantial than faith. Faith in the value of currency is all that stands between wealth and penury. This is so for nations as well as individuals. It can be said that economic value is actually derived from the production of commodities and, as Marx and the rest of the civilized world would have us believe, the labor required for that very production. But this is not so and has never been so. Economic value is actually determined by the records of bookkeepers. And therefore both accumulation of wealth and the onerous bonds of debt are equally illusory figments. Freedom from economic shackles is simply a matter of tossing the books on the ash bin of history. It is the case that those who are imprisoned by monetary economy must be complicit in their own captivity in order for the bars of the gaol to remain secure. The worst nightmare for the rich is the waking of the people from the cloying hypnosis brought about by the political magicians in their employ. It is of such stuff that economic depressions are constructed. Economic depression is freedom in the last analysis.
    "Toon, with an attitude like that I'm surprised you're not in jail". Brother Dankk

  3. #3
    Senior Member noot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toontown
    Posts
    329
    Blog Entries
    5
    As the General said...
    The worst nightmare for the rich is the waking of the people from the cloying hypnosis brought about by the political magicians in their employ.
    Take note.
    "Toon, with an attitude like that I'm surprised you're not in jail". Brother Dankk

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by noot View Post
    On Communism


    1. Corporations are the modern day's equivalent plantations.
    2. Wages are a form of slavery.
    3. Corporate entities have only one reason to exist. And that is the accumulation of riches by any means under the law. And it needs to be stated that big corporations make those laws directly and indirectly. Donations to politicians are proffered for the sole purpose bribing them to enact laws to their benefit. That is the direct approach. The indirect approach is still less ethical than the former. It has to do, again, with spending out of corporate profits on advertisements, political action committees, rigged polls, PR firms. In effect the indirect approach is simply the widest possible dissemination of capitalist propaganda.
    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................

    Noot, I totally and completely disagree with the quoted statements. Of course I don't know you, but it would seem that you are likely not speaking from experience, nor from any real knowledge of the make-up of corporations. So, are you speaking on the basis of what you heard from professors in school, or maybe from what you think you have learned from the media?? I will assume for my comments, when you say "corporations", you are meaning the "large corporations", and not the nickel and dime guys.

    Do you even know that most "large corporations" began as family businesses and/or small businesses? Large corporations don't just appear out of thin air, but usually grow from being a "small business", to the level of being a "large business", however we want to define "large". Small businesses or large businesses are managed by a host of people, and people who work there are working there, because they want to work there. Those businesses absolutely have no resemblance to plantations, and that ain't slavery bud, by any stretch of the imagination!!!!!! And for sure, in any corporation, it is the work and will of the employees (people) that is the key, and primary contributing factor, to successful operations and corporate growth.

    Noot, you say "wages are a form of slavery". That statement actually gives each of us good insight into what your thinking really is! Your thinking is not really about "wages being a form of slavery", because slaves were not paid "wages". It is clear that your "bitch" is about having "to work" to get paid! There is your "slavery thought". Your thought seems to be "one should not have to work", to make a living to feed their family, and to enjoy whatever other things of life one can afford through the "wages" they make. And if YOU don't want to have to work for it, then, YOU either have to get what YOU want from OPM (other people's money), or, get it from the government, which is also OPM.

    Now, noot, for a little direct info on corporations, large or small. They all perform under significant business regs. established by the USGov. How to organize, how to operate, taxing regs., small/large business regs, OSHA regs, small/minority business regs, import/export regs, accounting regs, employment regs, unionization regs, etc, etc, etc, etc.............!!!!!! And, as I said, most of these apply to large and small corporations. Now, many corporations are "privately owned". That means just that - - - individuals own the business, and thus are not subject to some of the financial disclosure requirements of "publicly owned" corporations. A publicly "owned corporation" is just what that says, "it is owned by the public". That "public ownership" of a corporation consists of those people who have bought/acquired shares of stock in that corporation, on the basis of their own freewill. The "sale" of company stock provides a financial basis for company operations, and every "public owner" of stock, has it for the expectation of the corporation making money, and paying stock dividends. The "public is never forced to buy stock, but the public buys stock for investment for the purpose of making money. But these are the people who own the company, to include both small and large stockholders, with each share of stock having equal voting rights in major decisions relative to operation and management of the company. Direct oversight of company operations is reviewed regularly by an elected company board of directors.

    So, the "Plantation" term used has no even remote resemblance to "corporations", neither small or large. A plantation was "individually owned", and existed, in your terms, under forced labor.

    noot next, you say "corporate entities" have only one reason to exist". And I will agree in a very broad sense with you on that. But I will totally disagree with your presumption of what that reason really involves. For sure, the reason for any business is to make money for the ownership, but, you are completely off-base in what you say. Neither small corporations, nor large corporations can "accumulate riches". Any monies they have - actually everything they have, money and capital, belongs to the ownership, which are the stockholders of the company. Obviously, corporations can have major amounts of cash on the balance sheets for operational and planning purposes, but at the bottom line, the "net capital" belongs to the stockholders.

    noot, a blanket statement like yours, is just terribly wrong, in my opinion. While I would be categorized as a "redneck, I spent many years involved in working for other people, and working for large corporations. Anytime you have "people" involved, there will be, at times, some crooked people breaking the regulations and laws. But, the reason we know about them, is they do get caught! But just because of some bad experiences with a few corporations, we shouldn't think all business are bad!!! Small and large businesses/corporations are the backbone of this great country, and continue to be the creative and production forces this country needs for providing a way for all of us to provide for our families, to the level of life we are WILLING TO WORK FOR!!!

    noot, while what I have said is pretty elementary, I am hoping this will give you, and maybe others here, a little different feel about this subject, coming from someone "that has been there and done that".

  5. #5
    Senior Member noot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toontown
    Posts
    329
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks for replying with Chamber of Commerce propaganda. Your depth of thought is commendable.
    "Toon, with an attitude like that I'm surprised you're not in jail". Brother Dankk

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by noot View Post
    Thanks for replying with Chamber of Commerce propaganda. Your depth of thought is commendable.
    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................
    noot, if you are an adult, you should know full well that the comments I provided has nothing to do with "propaganda", but rather is what this country has always been about. Even the founding fathers of this United States of America worked to make a living, and so has most everyone else since that time. That is what this country is all about, and when and if that ever changes, I will look for another place to live myself, because I know it will just become another "hell-hole", like so many other places around this world are today - Iraq, Iran, Pakistan. Libya, Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, Greece, Italy, Spain, Egypt, South Africa, China, Russia, etc, etc, etc,.............................................. .......................! Is that what you really want???

  7. #7
    Senior Member noot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Toontown
    Posts
    329
    Blog Entries
    5
    Here's what I want... "From each in accord with his ability and to each according to his needs." And as a companion principle... "Take from the earth only what you need; give back to her all that you can." Simple.
    "Toon, with an attitude like that I'm surprised you're not in jail". Brother Dankk

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by noot View Post
    Here's what I want... "From each in accord with his ability and to each according to his needs." And as a companion principle... "Take from the earth only what you need; give back to her all that you can." Simple.
    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ....
    noot, poetically and philosophically, that might sound good to some people, but there is no truth to that in the current advancement of the real world. From the early history of man, until some point in the relatively recent past, that thinking might could have prevailed in tribal communities, in the forests and on the prairies, that literally lived off the land, and prayed to the sun gods, the rain gods, and to whatever other gods they had. But nothing much ever changed, and they only worked to stay alive.

    The civilization on earth has pretty much advanced as far from that type of life, as is the day far from night. Absolutely no comparison to what is now man's desires for life, exploration, discovery, families, knowledge, etc,etc,etc,...........................! Man is no longer a part of a small tribal unit, but is a component part of a very complex, and nation-wide-society, which is becoming more world-wide every day. It is a time of instant world-wide communications, and it is a time of having space stations orbiting around the earth. It is a time of having Rovers on the Planet mars. And so on.

    One fools himself by having any serious philosophical thought that mankind is going to go backward, back to the tribal times, and go barefoot, and "just live off the land".

  9. #9
    Either way you look at it, power in the hands of the few is bad, also, expecting handouts creates a lack of progress, decency and self-worth. I'm a firm believer that idle hands create mischief and hard work builds character. Someone has to get up everyday and work to build a stable and rewarding society and I'm proud to be one of those people.
    This isn't poetry, this is the language of reality.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •