you draw some really good lines on the subject!! comrade

Written by [user id=4184] on 09.10.2006 at 00:43

@Skald: The ones that have "the ability to clone various animals, fly into outer space and deal with quantum physics" are in general not the same persons that seek a proletarian revolution, and would probably end up being eliminated for being non-communist, according to Frosty. I can't picture farmers and factory workers running the world - and I can't picture those who could run the world siding with them.

You tried to achieve what with that post, exactly? Because this basically is what I said in my previous post:
"Human mentality is the only barier that stops us from creating a communistic world order."

Anyway, I really wouldn't expect all those educated people to want this sort of change, when they are fed with propaganda about anarchy being a state of disorder or communism being what Soviet Union had. I wasn't pro-communism before seeing this thread either. But now I am. And I'm not really coming from extremely poor family that couldn't afford my education. In fact, I'm studying at university now.

All in all I'd expect an intelligent person to realise that the way things are today isn't exactly all okay. The problem is, very few know there are alternative solutions.

But see, that's one fatal flaw: the mentality is not going to change. Even if you could overthrow the governments and bourgeoisie, you'd still have to face the true root of evil - the 'will to power' that led to the rise of our capitalist society in the first place. Crime, corruption and greed are not a problem of capitalism; they are a problem of humanity.

I am a university student myself, and I very much agree that the way things are today is far from perfect, and wish people - especially the rich and powerful ones, of course - would act less selfishly. But I'm not willing to forfeit the comfortable life I can lead in this society for an egalitarian utopia based on questionable assumptions. (Now I sound much more selfish than I actually am - but then, I think that everyone is entitled to a little selfishness, and that it's natural, actually.)

On a side note, anarchy will only ever *not* become disorder when every individual behaves in a socially compatible way out of their own free will. Otherwise order will have to be enforced, which contradicts the idea of anarchism. Isn't that right?

Written by [user id=4184] on 09.10.2006 at 12:22

But see, that's one fatal flaw: the mentality is not going to change.

In order for me to see, show me. As in, provide an argument.
This isn't a fatal flaw. Humanity used to be for the most part anarchistic. The fact that it's different today proves that our mentality can be changed. It's but a mental evolution and I find belief that humanity will never change to be completely irrational. Sure, it may happen that we'll never change, but you don't know that. Merely believe.

Written by [user id=4184] on 09.10.2006 at 12:22

On a side note, anarchy will only ever *not* become disorder when every individual behaves in a socially compatible way out of their own free will. Otherwise order will have to be enforced, which contradicts the idea of anarchism. Isn't that right?

Erm, no. Idea of Anarchism stands in its name... "Without rulers". Meaning there's no social classes, no one stands above anyone else. But if you behave in 'wrong' way, then you'll be punished (but some anarchistic theories have other solutions) by the community. Anarchy is a form of democracy and the decisions are supposed to be made by the communities. Nothing is contradicting anything there.

Written by [user id=1868] on 09.10.2006 at 01:20

All in all I'd expect an intelligent person to realise that the way things are today isn't exactly all okay.

I agree with you here - things today are far from okay. But I am afraid that things will never be right nor perfect. IMO humans will not be completely satisfied with any ideology - there will always be something to complain about. Though I want that our society would change for better I do not like the idea of communism - I really like having my own posetions .

Now I have one question: Is it likely that some communities will get more powerful and richer then others? I mean the location, the resources, luck etc. And wont there be inequality then? Or will all the resources be equally distributed around the globe?

Written by FrozenSky on 09.10.2006 at 19:13

I really like having my own posetions .

Yeah, that's why I've been more into common anarchism than communism at first, but then I realised, I don't really have or want anything that I wouldn't will to share with other people.

Written by FrozenSky on 09.10.2006 at 19:13

Now I have one question: Is it likely that some communities will get more powerful and richer then others? I mean the location, the resources, luck etc. And wont there be inequality then? Or will all the resources be equally distributed around the globe?

I think all communities would benefit from that, so it's for common good. There would be a free distribution, so this wouldn't manifest as inequality.

Dragonheart: The scientist and professional classes that you refer to and seem to think i'd advocate eliminating WOULD be part of the proletarian revolution. Because by that time they would be proletarians in mind, as well as in fact (as they are today).

As for the bourgeiosie not being stupid and trying to maintain their illusion of legitimacy: The system inorexably makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. That cannot and will not change. The only option the bourgeiosie will have is military dictatorship. They may not be stupid, but they are blinded by ignorance and arrogance. Just as Marie-Antoinette (supposedly) told the proletarians of paris to eat cake, the modern bourgeiosie truly have no conception of the suffering of the exploited masses; and this will be their downfall.

And Frozensky: communities will not grow wealthier or poorer because the concept of individual wealth will be eradicated with the revolution. Resources will not be hoarded by communities and sold at a profit to other communities, but if some communities have a surplus they will give to other communities, under the understanding that whatever they need will be provided from the surpluses of other communities. Even that is over-simplifying the model, as most likely the distinction between "communities" will not be nearly so clear as we imagine them today.

Ahh, back from a busy weekend...
Some steps back, 'bout the education, what would be the point of a 10 year education if a 2 years education will earn you the same amount of money. Why do anything at all when sharing everything, being unemployed? As I see it the professionalist wouldn't be a part of the revolution earning enough already and just worsening their situation. As for meankind it belongs to their natural behaviour to have some kind of social structure. The strong leading the crowd. As I see it today it's the natural leaders that seek the jobs as leaders. If "richer" communities will suply the "poorer", it will even more sink the morality of men. Lazines and greed will be the fall of mankind. As I see it today a more neoliberalistic society will devlop faster. Communism is already too old for today society. It is based on a new indusrialized society. In Finland it is possible for the proletaries to rise from the ashes and become powerful themselves. Communism was based on a society where this was impossible, those born as poor have no richer future. The social/neoliberalism used in northern europe is the best working societies in the world. Free schools and universities give everyone the same chances. The society of today depends on the natural fighting between men, the stronger will win. Society is Nature. As for the international differences there's nothing to do. There will always be differences between men and between nations, no system will ever make the perfect world.

Discussing things would be so much easier if people would actually read and consider other people's posts...
In other words, most (if not all) of this was already answered in this thread, Destryphior.

basically, destryphior, people are not naturally lazy. They just like to be compensated for their efforts. There is tremendous satisfaction to be had in a good piece of work completed, a building that stands up, a good painting, or somesuch other achievement. The reason so many people resent working is because they know deep down that they are unappreciated wage-slaves with no true autonomy over their work. Builders would be so much more satisfied if they were allowed to build according to their own ideas, architects would design according to their own inspiration, not what was on-budget or appealed to a tasteless executive.

Are you telling me that you would actually enjoy sitting at home all your life sponging (and it would be seen and frowned upon) off the rest of society? People would shun you, and you would feel utterly useless.
People would spend 10 years in education because they wanted to. People do actually want to become doctors and engineers for reasons other than financial gain you know. Also, i absolutely love history, languages, etymology, and many other branches. I would give my right hand for the opportunity to study these at university, but i cannot, since they don't lead to a career from which i could pay off my loan and live comfortably and fulfills me intellectually. The rest of your post is simply a repetition of what you said before. Read my refutation of it and refute that if you can.

Frosty: Yes, military dictatorship would be one option, or a corporate police state (think Shadowrun if you know it). But I don't think such a development is necessary. The capitalists would just have to make sure that the poor don't get *too* poor, which should be entirely possible, if only at the cost of some money. And if they are not totally blind, which I don't think they are, they will realize if ever the possibility of an uprising starts to grow, and take action to prevent it. Revolutions don't happen out of the blue, after all.

BTW, not all capitalists are inherently evil, and not all proletarians are inherently good. And that would prove a big problem for the hypothetical communist society. The whole concept of Communism, it seems, is based on everyone doing their jobs without benefitting directly, and leaving behind the wish for personal gain and feelings like envy. Today's humans are absolutely unfit for that kind of society. Eradicate the concept of individual wealth? Someone is always going to seek their own profit.

Before you're going to quote Marx's theory of a "natural development" from capitalism to communism, consider this: The "natural development" has been away from "primitive communism/anarchism" towards our present-day capitalist society. Therefore, the proposed step to communism would not be a continuation, but a reversal. However, our living conditions, which have significant influence on the development of society, have evolved immensely, and are continuing to evolve. Why would it be natural then for society to revert into its ancient schemes, a move totally unparalleled by everything else that's going on?

EDIT: As for laziness and satisfaction, you are right stating that "there is tremendous satisfaction to be had in a good piece of work completed". That is, if the piece of work is truly unique. I doubt a factory worker who assembles the same stuff all the time is going to feel that way about his work. Yet not everyone can be an architect or a painter that works creatively. And yes, people do want to be compensated for their efforts, and the most visible compensation is payment. With this motivation gone, I totally second destryphior's doubts.

going paragraph for paragraph:

I think that the measures taken when revolution becomes a danger will be the progression from police state to military dictatorship. The most wonderful thing about the capitalist class is it's unwillingness to make individual sacrifice for the sake of the class interest. Rich capitalists who enjoy an unprecedented level of autonomy and freedom (from laws and obligations) will not be willing to pay for increased public services, as we can see happening today. The NHS in the UK is being slowly privatised. The swedes are slashing taxation, their welfare state will suffer. The republicans in america have almost achieved old reagan's wet dream of the total abolishment of the safety-net for the poor. Universities are going to be fee-paying in germany in under a decade. They already are in britain. This is a global trend throughout the developed capitalist countries, and it isn't going to stop here.

I agree that capitalists are not inherently evil. In fact they are necessary and vital parts of the system. If the specific capitalists we had today were proletarians, others would step into their places. Hate the class and the system that creates it, not the individual. Communism is based around a different social ethic. It seems unrealistic to you now because you live under a capitalist system, but to be honest it's the most sensible way. If people were presented with the different standards of living to be expected under the two systems they would be all for the communist one.

It's not about eradicating envy or greed, or some such social utopianism. Envy and greed will become entirely pointless in a society where there is a general surplus. It's a by-product of communism, rather than a required condition for it.

And in defence of Natural Development: You missed out feudalism, which is the link that binds the three stages together. The transition from primitive communism to feudalism was a matter of the aristocrats taking control of the masses by force, replacing and eradicating the shaman/druid class. The transition from feudalism to capitalism was a matter of the bourgeiosie taking control from the aristocrats, generally by revolution, and eradicating the aristocrat class. (britain was an exceptional case on both accounts, and the aristocracy is soon to be gotten rid of). The next transition will be the proletarians taking control from the bourgeiosie, and destryoing it as a class in the process. The result will be communism. It's not a matter of the detail of the systems involved, but the class that controls it. Primitive communism is a misnomer because the people were not truly autonomous or peaceful: tribes would frequently attack, kill and enslave each other, and the shaman/druid/witch doctor class had great sway over the mass.

Most work like assembly and construction will be automated. To be honest the only reason it isn't automated already is because the capital outlay is so great (not an issue in communism), the unions would strike (not an issue in communism), and the proletarians are willing to be exploited for cheaper than the benefits. Automation is a very significant part of communism, as it ensures that people are not forced into menial tasks.

And can you deny that harvesting a field of wheat, similar to every other field of wheat in the world, that you have grown with love and care is satisfying? I dispute the uniquity section of your argument.

And monetary payment is very far from a tangible payment means. Surely it's more tangible to be given everything you need? To be forced to go out and buy things, budget etc. adds extra steps to the consumption process. A far more direct payment method is to simply make everything free.

You know what? That sounds terrific. If it worked, it would indeed be perfect. But there's the catch - I doubt it will. You're very optimistic about the members of your envisioned society; too optimistic maybe.

Anyway, I'll just wait. If ever a proletarian revolution should be on the agenda, my decision whether to join it will mostly depend on the state of society at that time. And that is something I find quite hard to predict.

this is just the point that people never seem to understand and is the single greatest block to people joining in the ideology:

there need not be a big change in worker idealism, people do not need to become philanthropic self-sacrificers for the greater good!

The entire idea of a proletarian revolution is based around a greedy proletariat not wanting to give it's labour cheaply to an exploitative bourgeios state. I have no optimism about individuals. I know people are very often self-serving bastards for a large proportion of the time, and if they weren't then we wouldn't have (or need) a revolution.

It's simply a matter of people realizing that their own best interests lie in a communist society, asi'm sure pretty much everyone will agree they do. Nothing motivates like having more of what you want, so what can better motivate people to join a revolution than the certainty of having all that they could possibly consume for doing less labour? Resentment also plays a part: People will be jealous of a hated upper elite, and bitter about their inability to join it. That will inspire the necessary commitment to overthrow the current order.

The Revolution requires Hatred, Jealousy, Greed and Bitterness as much, if not more than Idealism, Humanitarianism, and Self Sacrifice. If we were all idealist philanthropists, we would be happy to allow people to exploit us: We would value the human lives of a very few above the gains that would be made for all humanity (and lives saved) by a revolution!

And the state of the State is not something that needs to be considered at the specific time: The state will grow steadily more controlling, invasive and micro-managing. Whatever point you experience on the descent into dictatorship that is a "modern liberal democracy" (like EU, US, and other western capitalist states), it must be opposed. Do you not treat a cancer just because it isn't yet life-threatening?

Some random points...

A move toward "modern liberal democracy" my friend some would consider and ascention not a descent.

philosophical ideals aside, why is it do you think dictators tend to like the marxist system of one sort or another for their ascention? An ideal needs to have some practical basis.

And why did Marxs idea of natural development not come to fruition?

COMRADE FROSTY .....................It's simply a matter of people realizing that their own best interests lie in a communist society..........................

I can tell you first hand that in my own small world I personally work harder than anyone around me. I would discontinue doing so if my labor were spread out. My intense work ethic
is not driven by greed or pure profit (although profit is a byproduct) it is just my nature to not be idle or lazy.

As for your comment about people generally are not lazy, I beg to differ. No 2 men have the same drive or motivation. Take a group of ten men. You and I both know 5 of the ten
will do $80 of the work. The others will either tag along, watch or do some other meaningless activity.

Why is that do you think?

1) the "slackers" realize that they are wage-slaves and have no motivation to aid their exploiters
2) they are in a dead-end profession that they despise (or at the least don't find intersting and stimulating), and so are unmotivated to work

Both of which would be cured in a communist society. Everyon has something in which they are interested, and everyone has talents that can be used for the benefit of society. If we removed the current class-perpetuating barriers to certain people getting certain jobs, this would no longer be an issue.

As you have said, it is not in your nature to be lazy. I challenge you to find someone who will seriously admit to the fact that there is nothing that interests them and could motivate them to work. Such people just don't exist, and if they did they would simply be the products of limited experience forced by the capitalist system.

No two people (women are humans too!) have the same drive to perform the same task. i would have little or no motivation to work as a mechanic, but i would love nothing better than to spend the rest of my life translating old english poetry. I don't very many people would find that particularly stimulating.


Now for the first part of your argument:

Marx's theories are currently in progress... The middle class is getting segregated from the super-rich who make up the modern bourgeiosie, and the poor are getting poorer. See the top paragraph of my post before last, and this article from the centre-right wing, intellectual and well-respected Times newspaper: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2399627.html

Marx was not a short-term thinker, we are on a centuries-long path laid bare by him.

Dictators do not embrace Marxism (i challenge you to find a marxist dictator, it is an oxymoron), they embrace Stalinism; which i do not propose as a model for society, and never have. (on a side note: i'd rather live in North Korea than liberated iraq, as i'm sure most people would).

And i'd be interested to see how countries are getting more democratic? Or have you not heard of the PATRIOT act? Or maybe Guantanamo bay. If you compare modern society with that of the 1960s, we are a far more authoritarian society than we were then, and even if we weren't, the actual power exercised by the masses has certainly decreased. A million and a half people marching through westminster in 1850 would have brought down a government, in 1950 it would have caused a major policy rethink.

In 2003 all we accomplished was 10 minutes on the news. How perfectly democratic.

1st I stated dictators used a form of communism. Matbe it was twisted to thier likeing or manipulated, but none the less used.

2nd. About Iraq. What bothers me most if you analize it, we are done fighting Sadam. It is the shites and sunies who now fight each other. Hell the muslims cant even get along with
each other. how do you expect the world to help them. You Cant blame Bush, Blair, or the common Iraqi for shites coming from Iran and causing shit in Iraq. As soon as they stop
killing................we leave. Isnt that what the muk muks want. NO, they do not want us to leave because then they have no more excuses to kill each other.

Sometimes the isolationist in me just wants to say fuck the world and leave MY TAX dollars here in the states where it will at least help our people. I would be thousands richer for it

Like my Russian friend says: "It was good in theory but bad in practice".

The communism had its disappearance practically with the fall of the Soviet union, although
communist régimes exist.
the capitalism, supposedly won the war (communism vs capitalism), but
alone in political terms, since 70% of the capitalist world is poor.
then the question is: did it really win the capitalism?
and if it won that it won? people's enjoyment? the social well-being?

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE - Che Guevara -
VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN! (ALIVE THE REVOLUTION!)

Bluescaponne: No, you said "dictators tend to like the marxist system"

About Iraq: Do you actually think americans are in iraq helping to solve the problem? The problem is that iraq is not a natural country, it was an arbitrary line drawn on the middle east by colonialists. The sectarian violence currently underway is a symptom of this wider problem, and the USA is doing nothing to fight the causes. If american soldiers left the country, but the dollars kept flowing, the situation would be straightened out a hell of a lot quicker. According to a senior Army official no less, the british forces in Iraq are inflaming the problem. The americans are if anything worse...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6047432.stm

There are western forces in iraq because the more that gets blown up, the more gets rebuilt by republican-owned corporations, and if they manage to keep the current government propped up and brutally supress all opposition then they're going to have access to one of the worlds' largest oil reserves.

And muk muk? what the hell is that?

Finally please, pleeeeease keep your tax dollars in america. Your troops aren't welcome anywhere else, and neither are your rendition flights or subsidised steel. But then isolationism is the enemy of globalization and imperialism, so that's never going to happen.
If america was isolationist, there wouldn't be any cheap oil contracts from the saudis and no bribes from israelies. And the palestinians would be free, the israelies would not have to put up with a national guilt (which causes persecution complex) or daily attacks, 600,000 iraquis would be alive that are now dead, around two thousand lebanese and IDF soldiers would still be alive, and north korea would not be developing nuclear weapons. Neither for that matter would iran, and israel would have decomissioned theirs and agreed to a nuclear-free middle east. The american economy took off truly after it joined in the old european game of raping the poor, i very much doubt it would bow out now that it's the head rapist.

If you think that all in the world is the fault of the U.S. then you are mistaken. The only theing that keeps the U.S. there now is that the Iraqis are fighting each other. they cannot even get along with one another. Yes I understand that lines were drawn geoloically and not with respect to types of people.

But less we digress to the middle east this is the communist post.

What I dont understand is that yours and my country are sister nations. Do you dispise your nation as well? Have the UK and the US done any good in world?

Question, are you supporting or is there a communist movement in the UK?

Tencho. The standard of living among western nations should prove capitalsim works as opppsed to say Korea where Stalinism is stil prevolant. Rural china, East Gemrany (before) etc

oh no, i think the state of the world is mainly the fault of european imperialism. And i think we're never going to reach an agreement on what keeps the american (and british) forces in iraq; but i'll just state my position once more that american presence in iraq causes far more violence that it solves.

And i have no country, i am an internationalist. The concept of nationality and patriotism is a device of the Bourgeiosie of the enlightenment, when kingdoms turned into nations, that allowed them to prevent the emerging proletariat from uniting. The existence of countries is abhorrent to me, and no developed capitalist country is any better than the others: just some have less capacity to oppress than others. I criticize the USA most of all because they do the most oppressing, and their oppression is so much more blatant (they haven't learned the same lessons of imperialism that the european slave-masters have, but i have every faith in their expanding capacity for hidden exploitation).

I support and will protest, campaign and propagandize for any marxist movement, but am currently not directly affiliated with a specific organization. The communist movement in the UK is very much splintered cells. The Socialist Workers' Party and Communist Party of Great Britain are both leninists, so i guess you could call them commies, but i'd be as likely to join them as you would to join the greens.

And standard of living in developed capitalist countries is kept artificially high by the exploitation of those in the less developed nations around the world. Do you think we would be able to liv as we do if vietnamese children didn't sew our shoes for pennies per day, and if arab children didn't starve because we underpay for our oil, and ensure that all the revenue goes straight back into western corporations- and thus into the western economies- in the form of idiotic building projects, expensive cars and yachts.

In response to artificial wage inflation and exploiting thos eunderdeveloped................the peoples in the countries where they make nike shoes for pennies on the dollar with
to us currency, these people make wages higher than others in their community. So you may make less than a western citizen but more than your peers. thats is satill a plus.

I am not suprised that you would use as you say "propaganda" to further your cause, only suprised that you freely admit it. you see an ideal such as freedom and capitalism
needs no propaganda(not to say that it doesnt exist), The ideals themselves are self evident to the free thinker.

Here is an anology

2 men live on an island and to maintain life each man must gather 3 coconuts, one for each meal.

In my world each man is required to gather his own nuts. He may help the other in times of need or he may even collect 4 or 5 nuts to secure future problems. (capitalism)

In your world we will only have to collect as many nuts as we wish and the rest shall come from others. I may only collect 2 but my third will come no matter what.

You may laugh at the elementary story but the philosophy remains the same. goodnite all

Written by Anthem on 14.10.2006 at 06:35

In response to artificial wage inflation and exploiting thos eunderdeveloped................the peoples in the countries where they make nike shoes for pennies on the dollar with
to us currency, these people make wages higher than others in their community. So you may make less than a western citizen but more than your peers. thats is satill a plus.

Geez, you're such an American...
Have you ever thought that if there was a higher inflow of money for their work, it may support the general economy and thus improve standard of living for the whole nation?
Apparently your world isn't as much about helping those in need, as you believe it to be.

bluescaponne, your little analogy described a primitive hunter-gatherer situation. Let me improve on it.

Three people are on an island. Person One is (insert opressed minority here), Person Two grew up in with a similar culture to person Three, but less priveliged. Person 3 owns the palm trees.

Person Three waits for the others to get hungry, and persuades person one to get a coconut down off the tree, promising him some of the proceeds. Person one complies, knowing that if person three doesn't give him any he and person two will kill person three and take the coconut, as they all know and agreed.

Person two, feeling left out, asks for some coconut. Person three complies, on the condition that person two will cut the coconut open.

Person three then gives one sixth of the coconut to person one, half as much again to person two, and keeps the rest for himself.

He then waits for person one to get hungry (he has the least food), and gives him some of his coconut up front in return for fetching three coconuts. He then gives the rest of his coconut to person two in exchange for person two cutting open one coconut, and uses the excess from that coconut to pay person two to open the others.

He then has enough coconut to pay person one to cut down some more, and pay person two to open them, and still have enough to eat himself; which means that their personal surplus grows, and yet the others are limited to what they can earn from person three. This is called wage slavery.


Now for communism, which you still do not understand.

Three people are on an island again. This time nobody owns anything, and they all grew up with different but equally priveliged lifestyles.

Persons one, two and three climb a tree together and cut down six coconuts. They each eat about half of a coconut, and feel full. Bored, they repeat the process, so now they have nine spare coconuts and three full bellies.

Person two has an interest in engineering, so persons one and three agree that person two is excused climbing and opening duties, and he can live from the surplust they built up while he designs them a stick with which to get more coconuts down. (because by this time nobody really wants to be climbing)

Three weeks later, there is an even larger surplus of coconuts, and person two's stick has halved the amount of work necessary for getting a coconut down (although it is no more fun). Now one person can bring down more coconuts than all three can eat in one time-space.

Persons one and three naturally have interests in art and languages, so they decide that they will all take one day out of three to bring down coconuts, and the fourth day (after each has a turn) can be a rest day, where they eat the surplus that has accumulated.

The amount of work that needs to be done is constantly reduced by person two's inventions, who in turn is inspired by person three's art, and person one entertains them all with readings of beowulf in old english.

They all live happily ever after.



And i fail to see how an income disparity in any society can be seen as a good thing? All it does is reroute the justifiable bitterness and hatred of the system on the part of the lower-earning-slaves onto the backs of the slightly-higher-earning-slaves.

And i fail to see what is bad about propaganda? Is it wrong to campaign for your political party come election time? That is propaganda. Just my party's election time is ALL the time. Why would i not admit it freely?

And capitalism needs no propaganda in the way that slavery needed no propaganda in the 1700s. It was strong enough and oppressive enough and profitable enough to the ruling class to not need to defend itself.

For every rich well of capitalist country there needs to be two poor capitalist countries for it to exploit. If it werent for the poor countries the rich one wouldnt have the sources of its wealth

well since i created this topic it's suitable for my farewell.

Since my political views or the expression of them are not to the liking of the administration and unnamed others, i'm off. Nice chatting to y'all.

*off-topic*

Regarding the above post, let it be clear: we didn't tell Red Frosty to go away because we don't like communists.
He had created several accounts (not only the two you can find in this thread) over the last years and he never actually participated in metal discussions, but focussed only on Communism and a few other Serious Discussions threads. To some point, that could be considered propaganda, even though, due to this user's overall friendly attitude, it was not.
He isn't banned actually.

*thanks for understanding*

Written by [user id=1868] on 09.10.2006 at 21:57

Discussing things would be so much easier if people would actually read and consider other people's posts...
In other words, most (if not all) of this was already answered in this thread, Destryphior.

good sad my freind,
and its one of reason why i dont post here and seems ppl dont understand those nations who was under coministic gourment
seems western europeaians wont understnad it
Specely young kids even in central and eastern Europe
Me too I dont remeber a lot of but still etliest something + stories

Well here are to many unreadet post for me and to many nonn answered post, so i ecen can say IMO because of it

@That who sad:''it was good in theory and bad in practice.''

Haha Mark's Engel leither Lenin, Trocky its diferent theories what Stalin idea of rulle in USSR, in 30ties there as lil capitalism tendencies and ''NEP'' dunno how its in englisg, somethinh ''new ecomimic policy'' but after lenin die and Stalin take rule he send assassin to kill Trocky, ussr sratrt go diferent, specely after WWII only if Churcher open sened front in Central Europe ... ''

Written by Bad English on 26.10.2006 at 13:44

Written by [user id=1868] on 09.10.2006 at 21:57

Discussing things would be so much easier if people would actually read and consider other people's posts...
In other words, most (if not all) of this was already answered in this thread, Destryphior.

good sad my freind,
and its one of reason why i dont post here and seems ppl dont understand those nations who was under coministic gourment
seems western europeaians wont understnad it
Specely young kids even in central and eastern Europe
Me too I dont remeber a lot of but still etliest something + stories

Well here are to many unreadet post for me and to many nonn answered post, so i ecen can say IMO because of it

@That who sad:''it was good in theory and bad in practice.''

Haha Mark's Engel leither Lenin, Trocky its diferent theories what Stalin idea of rulle in USSR, in 30ties there as lil capitalism tendencies and ''NEP'' dunno how its in englisg, somethinh ''new ecomimic policy'' but after lenin die and Stalin take rule he send assassin to kill Trocky, ussr sratrt go diferent, specely after WWII only if Churcher open sened front in Central Europe ... ''

Same thing I did heard, read from many documents. They blame to Stalin.