| Welcome to Capitalist Paradise: Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.|
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:
Capitalist Paradise Official Forums
| Last updated 02/8/10
Member No.: 8
Joined: 29-May 10
|QUOTE (Reed Audio)|
|The word "Revisionist" actually refers to a faction of the German (then, not now, Marxist) Social Democratic party in the early 1900's who rejected violent revolution (at least at that time) and believed they could improve the condition of workers by state interventions (rather than setting up a new society).|
Orthodox Marxists argued hat there was little difference (in practice) between Revisionists and the statism of the German (especially Prussian) State - after all Bismark had adovated government provision for old age and sickness as early as 1862 (and had put these policies into practice in the 1880s). However, Bismark did not support the destruction of private property in the means of production (although he was fine with some state ownership) - officially the German Social Democratic party (including the Revisionists) held that all private property in the means of production should become collectively owned eventually - in fact that was the offical position of the German Social Democratic party right to 1959.
Before anyone thinks "that is really late" - full socialism (i.e. the collective ownership of all private property in the means of production) was the official position of the British Labour party till the 1990s (when the infamous "Clause Four" of the Labour Party Constitution, which used to appear on all Labour party membership cards, was changed). How many Labour party members actually ever believed this stuff is a matter of hot debate - I remember asking "if you do not believe in this stuff, why is it the Constitution of the party you voluntarily joined and why is it actually written on your membership card?" However, such questions would normally get "you are a McCarthyite" as a response. There was an effort to get rid of Clause Four in the late 1950's and early 1960's (about the same time as the German party got rid of its version of the thing), but this effort was voted down by the Labour Party Conference - as stated above the thing did not finally go till the 1990s (way after the Berlin Wall came down).
Communism - socialism just means collective ownership, but communism means material equality as well.
Communal living has existed for thousands of years - often in religious communities (such as monasteries of the stricter religious orders), but there are secular communes also.
The point about POLITICAL "Communism" is that such people wish to IMPOSE such a way of life - first socialism (the collective ownership of the means of production) then (at some future time - they tend to be fuzzy on the date) egalitarian communism.
To say that communism should not come till "society" is ready for it is meaningless. What matters is whether INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS are going to be forced to live this way or not. If not - then fine, as anyone who wants "communism" (communal living) can have it RIGHT NOW - they can join a religious or secular commune.
among other things
Still contactable via email
ShoutMix chat widget