FazzTheMan, The Novelist
Currently im working on finishing The Hammer, The Eagle, and The Pig, a story that was previously submitted for a contest.
Words of Wisdom
"All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality, they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are truly powerful." - Mao Tse-tung
"I am now quite certain the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with blood." - John Brown
"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." - Karl Marx
"Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always." - Errico Malatesta
"The revolution is a dictatorship of the exploited against the exploiters." - Fidel Castro
"Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibility of oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan!" - Vladimir Lenin
"If you tremble indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine." - Ernesto Che Guevara
Recent PostsSteve demands attention! on 4/23/2017 8:22:52 AM
Brilliant sleight work, you cheeky piece of shit.
Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 11:35:01 PM
>Yeah, I thought you wouldn't want to. Best shove that part of the Holy Book in the back.
Well it's more along the fact that I don't like to engage in lies.
>What a long piece by someone I don't care about. I never mentioned Lenin, don't know why you're wasting my time with that.
Because Lenin is as important to Marxism, specifically Marxist-Leninism as Marx himself was.
>What I was pointing out was that you don't understand Marx and were being wrong when you said that quote. You say you've never even read the bit about opiates, yet you were happy to say your opinion on what he "actually" meant, which makes it clear as shit you don't have a clue what's going on with this ideology.
It's more that I haven't read all his works and that I haven't completely studied Marxism yet than me not understanding what he's saying. I don't see how I'm wrong on what he "actually" meant, in the broader frame of reference of Marxist-Leninism.
Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 11:32:30 PM
>Then don't talk about that shit like you know it. Don't try defend the actions of the man without knowing a clue about it.
I'm not defending him though. All I've said so far was that he had faults but he was still a socialist leader.
>I believe in Capitalism with restrictions and government controls.
The idea of ethical capitalism is a myth. Even if you don't like imperialism and want 'government controls' (?) there will still be a bourgeois class that exploits a proletariat class. Private property will still be a concept. Basic human necessities like housing, education, and healthcare will require money. And the bourgeoisie will still be engaged in imperialism, as we see with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and so on.
>No I sure as shit don't.
Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society wherein the means of production are democratically owned by the proletariat (in other words, private property is abolished). Socialism is a broader term wherein the means of production are owned by either the proletariat, collectively, or the state, and a specific case of socialism, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is the transitory period between capitalism and communism.
Therefore, of course, communism has never been achieved. Whereas socialism has been.
You simply must be confusing the two because otherwise you wouldn't be making any sense.
>You bitch about Fascism, but most capitalism societies avoid it, and I don't support it.
That's great, but fascism occurs when the contradictions of capitalism become too great and society can go either socialist or fascist, hence the term 'capitalism in decay'. So capitalism is responsible for the rise of fascism.
>However, all Communist societies have so far been failures overall in one way or another.
No communist society has ever existed in the history of all humanity.. There have been successful socialist ones, like we see in Maoist China, Lenin-Stalin USSR, and Cuba today. Famines do not render a socialist state a failure -- what makes it a failure is its collapse, like we see in the USSR and Maoist China.
>Communism hasn't. Capitalism outlived it. So so far, it's the best we have.
Communism has never existed. Capitalism is the best we have had, when compared to previous societies like feudalism. However, due to class antagonisms, capitalism is absolutely not permanent. Class antagonisms cause a society to become unstable, and sooner or later, a proletarian revolution will occur, just as a revolution occurred in fedualist society giving us capitalism.
Communism solves this problem because when everybody is equal and nobody is oppressed through class warfare, the society is stable. The oppressed class will not revolt a create a new society, because there are no oppressed class.
>Don't confuse Socialism and Communism, dipshit. It's insultingly stupid if I'm being generous and blatantly dishonest if not.
>Look, you have no fucking idea what you're on about. You can't even tell the difference between Socialism or Capiatlism, showing another blatant example of your misunderstanding of Marx. I don't give a shit if you need an ideology to cling to, just cling to a better one.
I feel like you're trolling me, but you're way too dedicated. So I'm going to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean by all of this nonsense.
@jep49 since I feel as though you're genuine this response applies to you as well. And:
>This is the equivalent of rooting through all your rotted cabbages, picking out one that is less decayed than the rest, and declaring it to be better than any of your neighbor's cabbages.
A way to make this metaphor more applying would be to say that there is an epidemic of diseased cabbage in my community. I am trying to raise non-diseased cabbage, but due to my neighbor (who raises diseased cabbage) purposefully contracting my cabbage with the disease and some of the cabbages in my garden decided to be diseased on their own, most of my cabbages end up becoming diseased. However as it turns out, one of my cabbages is non infected.
Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 10:22:04 PM
>Maybe do a bit more research into the example of your ideology failing before subscribing to it.
Of course, but research into the history of a country can't occur in one day. It's a slow process. And I've only begun my study of communism recently.
>What you're showing here is that occassionally, bad shit goes on with Capitalism.
Bad shit in an inherent part of capitalism. Exploitation, oppression, and imperialism in an inherent part of capitalism. By agreeing with capitalism, you indirectly agree with King Leopold.
>no shining Communist places
Communism is a utopian society which has never occurred yet. What you're meaning to say is socialism.
>The Holocaust happened because of Fascism and dictatorship, not capitalism
Fascism is simply capitalism in decay. Had Rosa Luxemburg won in 1918, the Holocaust would have never occurred.
>This can be told by looking at all the times things didn't go belly up in other capitalist nations. It seems after the test of time, the communist nations are the shit ones, and the capitalist ones thrive.
As I said earlier, pioneering an entirely new society is a monumental task. Just by taking a glance at things, it seems like revisionism and counter-revolutionary forces are what drove most socialist states downwards. We see this in China, Russia, Vietnam, and every country that has had a communist rebellion.
Due due to class antagonisms, capitalism will not survive the test of time. Capitalism has only thrived thus far because it was better than feudalism.
Also, what about Cuba? Besides the political repression, it's a decent socialist state.
Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 10:02:12 PM
I'm just not going to respond to your first sentence.
Karl Marx didn't write just one book, he wrote multiple texts. Many of which I haven't read yet, like the one in which he makes his opiate quote. So I thank you for catching my neck, so to speak.
I'd like to quote "The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion", a short piece by Lenin:
Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion.
This is one of those current objections to Marxism which testify to a complete misunderstanding of Marxian dialectics. The contradiction which perplexes these objectors is a real contradiction in real life, i. e., a dialectical contradiction, and not a verbal or invented one. To draw a hard-and-fast line between the theoretical propaganda of atheism, i. e., the destruction of religious beliefs among certain sections of the proletariat, and the success, the progress and the conditions of the class struggle of these sections, is to reason undialectically, to transform a shifting and relative boundary into an absolute boundary; it is forcibly to disconnect what is indissolubly connected in real life. Let us take an example. The proletariat in a particular region and in a particular industry is divided, let us assume, into an advanced section of fairly class-conscious Social-Democrats, who are of course atheists, and rather backward workers who are still connected with the countryside and with the peasantry, and who believe in God, go to church, or are even under the direct influence of the local priest—who, let us suppose, is organising a Christian labour union. Let us assume furthermore that the economic struggle in this locality has resulted in a strike. It is the duty of a Marxist to place the success of the strike movement above everything else, vigorously to counteract the division of the workers in this struggle into atheists and Christians, vigorously to oppose any such division. Atheist propaganda in such circumstances may be both unnecessary and harmful—not from the philistine fear of scaring away the backward sections, of losing a seat in the elections, and so on, but out of consideration for the real progress of the class struggle, which in the conditions of modern capitalist society will convert Christian workers to Social-Democracy and to atheism a hundred times better than bald atheist propaganda. To preach atheism at such a moment and in such circumstances would only be playing into the hands of the priest and the priests, who desire nothing better than that the division of the workers according to their participation in the strike movement should be replaced by their division according to their belief in God. An anarchist who preached war against God at all costs would in effect be helping the priests and the bourgeoisie (as the anarchists always do help the bourgeoisie in practice). A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could. A Marxist must be able to view the concrete situation as a whole, he must always be able to find the boundary between anarchism and opportunism (this boundary is relative, shifting and changeable, but it exists). And he must not succumb either to the abstract, verbal, but in reality empty “revolutionism’˜ of the anarchist, or to the philistinism and opportunism of the petty bourgeois or liberal intellectual, who boggles at the struggle against religion, forgets that this is his duty, reconciles himself to belief in God, and is guided not by the interests of the class struggle but by the petty and mean consideration of offending nobody, repelling nobody and scaring nobody—by the sage rule: “live and let live”, etc., etc.
It is from this angle that all side issues bearing on the attitude of Social-Democrats to religion should be dealt with. For example, the question is often brought up whether a priest can be a member of the Social-Democratic Party or not, and this question is usually answered in an unqualified affirmative, the experience of the European Social-Democratic parties being cited as evidence. But this experience was the result, not only of the application of the Marxist doctrine to the workers’ movement, but also of the special historical conditions in Western Europe which are absent in Russia (we will say more about these conditions later), so that an unqualified affirmative answer in this case is incorrect. It cannot be asserted once and for all that priests cannot be members of the Social-Democratic Party; but neither can the reverse rule be laid down. If a priest comes to us to take part in our common political work and conscientiously performs Party duties, without opposing the programme of the Party, he may be allowed to join the ranks of the Social-Democrats; for the contradiction between the spirit and principles of our programme and the religious convictions of the priest would in such circumstances be something that concerned him alone, his own private contradiction; and a political organisation cannot put its members through an examination to see if there is no contradiction between their views and the Party programme. But, of course, such a case might be a rare exception even in Western Europe, while in Russia it is altogether improbable. And if, for example, a priest joined the Social-Democratic Party and made it his chief and almost sole work actively to propagate religious views in the Party, it would unquestionably have to expel him from its ranks. We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offence to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it. We allow freedom of opinion within the Party, but to certain limits, determined by freedom of grouping; we are not obliged to go hand in hand with active preachers of views that are repudiated by the majority of the Party.
Another example. Should members of the Social-Democratic Party be censured all alike under all circumstances for declaring “socialism is my religion”, and for advocating views in keeping with this declaration? No! The deviation from Marxism (and consequently from socialism) is here indisputable; but the significance of the deviation, its relative importance, so to speak, may vary with circumstances. It is one thing when an agitator or a person addressing the workers speaks in this way in order to make himself better understood, as an introduction to his subject, in order to present his views more vividly in terms to which the backward masses are most accustomed. It is another thing when a writer begins to preach “god-building”, or god-building socialism (in the spirit, for example, of our Lunacharsky and Co.). While in the first case censure would be mere carping, or even inappropriate restriction of the freedom of the agitator, of his freedom in choosing “pedagogical” methods, in the second case party censure is necessary and essential. For some the statement “socialism is a religion” is a form of transition from religion to socialism; for others, it is a form of transition from socialism to religion.
So maybe with the withering of capitalism under a socialist government I will lose my religion as Lenin writes here. Or maybe I won't. In any case, my religion does act as an opiate and I don't see it interfering with my Marxist learning, besides the philosophy of material dialectics, which I have a rudimentary understanding of.
Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 9:51:04 PM
I don't know if Stalin himself was personally responsible for the killing of 40 million people. And I also don't know if Stalin was a dictator. And I don't want to disagree or agree with you because I haven't studied Soviet history thoroughly yet.
But what's relevant is that Stalin did lead a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The Soviet Union under Stalin was socialist. Stalin was a pioneer for communism, thus.
>You can bitch about how Capitalism kills, but it seems every time the Communists try build a country it ends up jack shit.
And you can bitch about how "every time the Communists try build a country it end up jack shit", I guess? Oh and nice brushing aside the death toll of capitalist leaders, you tremendous piece of shit. It's nice how people blame Marxism for Holodomor, but not capitalism for King Leopold II's atrocities in the Congo, or capitalism for the Holocaust, or capitalism for the genocide of Native Americans and Africans, or capitalism for poor people dying in the streets in contemporary society.
You're right in that my treatment as a Muslim person in the U.S. led me to communist, but it wasn't entirely just that. I don't know how I'm misunderstanding Marx. Are you saying Marx wouldn't have supported Stalin as a socialist leader, or something else?
Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 9:22:36 PM
Stalin's policies of collectivization were not completely successful because they were in some aspects responsible for massive famines wherein a great many of people died. (It should be noted however, where or not these famines were purposefully engineered, is debated.) Stalin's paranoia and failure of certain policies, such as collectivization, which led to many people dying, were faults of him, just like many other characteristics and policies of Stalin. It is important to recognize these faults and understand them as faults.
It should be understood however that Stalin led a for the most part successful socialist nation. Therefore, Marxist-Leninists support Stalin as an important socialist leader, but can understand his faults.
When pioneering the transitory period between the last and next stages of human society, it is important to build off of previous pioneers and understand what went wrong and what went right in their pioneership. It is also important to recognize the fact that, they themselves were pioneers, no matter how unsuccessful they were.
It is also important to understand that Stalin was not alone or abnormal in the mass death toll during his leadership. Every capitalist leader in history is a mass murderer, for instance, though not every leader's death toll during leadership may come close to Stalin's (which is what makes Stalin abnormal).
I hope this pleases you.
Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 8:46:58 PM
Because I don't see anything in Islam that is incompatible with everything I have read thus far in communism. If anything, Muhammad himself was a revolutionary against oppression ( which was occurring at the hands of the Quraysh people, who he led military action against). Islam does not prevent me from being anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-exploitation(ist). If anything, it encourages me to fight against all oppression and exploitation.
In any case, Marx in this quote isn't necessarily saying "religion is evil and should be purged". He simply offers his observation of religion: in that it helps "dull the pain" of capitalism, much like opiates dull physical pain.
Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 8:37:16 PM
A socialist leader who upholded Marxist-Leninism and crushed a fascist state??? LE GASP???
Believing in the principles of Marxist-Leninsm != Being a tankie.
I am not a tankie, I can understand Stalin and the USSR in general had faults but I am not going to defend or ignore the majority of said faults (because some "faults" of the USSR can be defended.)
However, Stalin, like Mao or Castro, was a socialist leader. And I am a socialist. Thus, like Mao or Castro (who had faults of their own, of course, just like any other leader in history) I will generally support him.
Steve demands attention! on 4/22/2017 4:43:22 PM
What's funny is I don't disagree with anything you said, besides the sentiment of living in the USSR (I wouldn't like to live in the USSR).