The REDSTAR2000 Papers

Listen to the worm of doubt, for it speaks truth. - Leftist Discussion

Communism and the "World Culture" July 9, 2004 by RedStar2000

There are those who deplore the "triumph of the west" in cultural terms.

It is not the military or economic behavior of imperialism that bothers them so much as it is the "loss" of all the old pre-capitalist "cultures".

For them, communism is no "improvement"...whatever material changes take place, communism can't "save" the "old cultures".

Is that so "bad"?



What is the real purpose of communism? Classless society, but why?

Because it is only in classless society that everyone is free to "become themselves" instead of a "cog" in someone else's economic machine.

When you are a wage-slave (or a member of some other oppressed group), that shapes you in the same way that bad climates and poor soil shapes a plant. You are not the "you" that you might have been in more favorable circumstances (that applies to the rich as well as to the poor).

Classless society is the effort by the human species to maximize favorable conditions for each of its individual members.
First posted at Che-Lives on June 24, 2004


Why not devise another system or mode of life? Why is it that anti-capitalists almost always seem to turn to a predetermined mode of life, instead of devising their own?

Because human culture is such that we see no need to re-invent the wheel with every new generation. After 150 years, Marxism remains an amazingly fertile paradigm with a demonstrated track-record of explaining much of social reality...certainly far more than any competing paradigm.

If, after several centuries, the central Marxist hypothesis -- proletarian revolution and classless society -- fails to materialize, people will certainly develop new paradigms that will seek, among other things, explanations for why that didn't happen.

But there's little reason to "switch" at this point...especially since there's no viable alternative.
First posted at Che-Lives on June 25, 2004


Of course there is "no viable alternative" at present; it's much easier to follow someone else's model then to create a new and dynamic one, isn't it. You don't have to think too hard to die for Marx, or oppress in the name of Marx, or anything else in the name of Marx. My, my, sound like a particular social institution/phenomenon that you despise?

What it sounds like is that you have been reduced to incoherent babble.

Do you reproach me for lack of genius? Guilty!

Have I "died for Marx"? Obviously not.

Have I oppressed anyone "in the name of Marx"? Who?

Have I done anything else "in the name of Marx"? Well, you have no choice but to take my word for it, but the answer is no.

Marxism is a set of tools for understanding social phenomenon.

It is certainly not, as you moronically insinuate, a "religion".
First posted at Che-Lives on June 26, 2004


I refuse to accept a predetermined "western" linear future!

You'd prefer, perhaps, a predetermined "eastern" linear past?


There must be conflict of one sort or another in order to maintain cultural diversity.

Why is "cultural diversity" an over-riding priority?

If the price of a decent standard-of-living for the whole world was the total loss of "cultural diversity", wouldn't it be worth it?


If we all accepted the same ideas and values, would we not be a mono-culture...?

Yep. So what?


...cultural conflict (I am referring to this form of conflict in non-violent terms, but rather in terms of cultural and ethical discourse) is necessary to maintain an identity.

Only if you think of identity in cultural terms; e.g., I "am" a "member" of "culture X".

If you think of it in other terms, you still have an identity...just not one based on a parochial culture.


Western secular societies may be able to justify WMD's and bio-research into fields such as stem cells and cloning, but most interpretations of Islam would not.

Cheap shot! And untrue at that.

Pakistan -- a Muslim country -- has nuclear bombs.

Stem cells and cloning are potential weapons against the illnesses that beset humanity...something far more valuable and important than some superstitious load of dessicated Arabian crap.

Note that the Koran clearly justifies the beating of women as a command of Allah...but "most interpretations" of western secular ideology do not.


We too often think of the future in terms of technology and jingoistic buzz phrases.

The former is obviously justified. The latter is imperialist rhetoric and does not (normally) apply to the people on this board...who are, by and large, opposed to empires of all kinds.

quote: technology doesn't actually solve problems but creates new ones...

Yes, the attempt to solve an old problem often works...but creates a new problem in the process.

The universe is complicated and was not "designed" for our convenience.

And our technology is still, when all is said and done, quite primitive.

Based on experience, there's no reason in principle why we cannot continue to learn how to do things better.

quote: research fields all have nasty underbellies which raise ethical paradoxes which are almost impossible to solve.

For example?


We create virtual communities to replace real ones.

Because the "virtual communities" are better than the "real ones".

At least that's the case right now; it may not always be so.

Maybe participating in "virtual communities" will eventually teach us how to do it "in real life".

Who knows?


But because something is amazing and profound does not mean it is morally or ethically sound.

Don't mean it ain't, either.


Islam, just like secularism, is a set of morals.

Yes, a very bad set. But certainly no worse than most superstitions and probably better than some.


Why not try and see all worldviews in the same light? I'm talking religions etc. You don't have to convert, but respect some of the wisdoms and truths that they do contain and promote.

They are unworthy of respect by anyone who is either rational or humane.

And, by the way, you approach the borders of Opposing Ideologies by even bringing that kind of question up.


Marxism is a Euro-centric ideology (as is Romantic-secularism, and our principles of "democratic freedom"). Therefore it cannot exist in a non-european society without a process of Europeanisation first occurring, which I'm sure you'll agree is tantamount to Imperialism.

Imperialism is an economic/political phenomenon; the fact that the colonial country (or its elite, to be more precise) adapts to that phenomenon by changing its culture is secondary.


Communist revolution would only serve to better the Western Moral filters, but would have the same effect as a capitalist system on other cultures, by replacing their filter with yet another western devised one. Both I'm sure you'll agree are Imperialism.

Hardly. Communism will, in all likelihood, directly attack the obsolete "filters" in all cultures...including even the "west" itself.

It's not as if we don't have our own load of historical trash to remove,


Many would argue that true faith is not blind, but rational and open-minded.

Many would argue that shit makes good shoe-polish...but sensible people ignore such "arguments".


Marxism's complete denial of any religious form or purpose is to me an arrogant and high-handed form of reactionism, it chooses to see religion how it IS being used, rather then its original and possible future purpose.

True, Marxism is a historical science concerned with things as they really are and how they got to be that way.

Your notion of the "original and possible future purpose" of religion, on the other hand, is just smoke pouring out of your ass.

And is "off-topic" as well.

Starting "secular" threads in order to smuggle in religious propaganda is a good way to get restricted on this board.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 1, 2004


Pity the same can't be said of starting "intellectual" threads to smuggle in ignorant, parochial bullshit.

Brilliant response.


A progressive society is one which can maintain its cultural heritage, tradition and identity whilst remaking itself to fit its changing environment and the dynamics that brings with it. As opposed to just simply changing. Change without a solid cultural and historical base is merely the replication of culture without progression.

There's no such thing as "just changing"...every change has a historical basis.

The rest of what you said is just incoherent babble.


Fuck you, you condescending prick!

Keep it up; your "intellectual" stature is rising by the minute.


We'll give you a set wage but the trade-off is you have to abandon your identity, your culture and everything else that defines who you are. You are no longer a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Punjabi, a Pashtun, Maya etc. You are a worker, part of the massive worldwide proletariat. Your history and culture don't matter because we're all equal here; you're just another cog in the machine. Here's your rations, now don't look so disenfranchised; we have just "freed" you from the "chains of oppression".

A caricature, of course...but that does seem to be the limit of your capabilities.

We don't "give" people anything, least of all a "set wage" (no money in communism). People liberate themselves.

Yes, the "identity" of worker does outweigh all that old crap that you are so infatuated with...none of it has ever freed a single wage-slave.

A "cog in the machine"? What do you think all your precious "cultures" are, if not machines? They were all invented by humans and are subject to modification or rejection by humans as they see fit.


NO FUCKER! It would not be "worth it"! The trade off is too great. Your being for material equality? FUCK OFF!

And yet another "intellectual" response of "staggering" brilliance.

What's not so funny is your clear preference for cultural diversity...even at the expense of the material well-being of the human species.

What the hell are you doing on a left message board, anyway?


...political affiliations are not culture. Maybe in your bland and ignorant postmodern reality, yes, but not in real tangible terms!

Speaking of ignorance, Marxists are not "post-modernists"...just thought I'd let you know.


You sit back in your fucked up little American world and pontificate on an outside world that you don't understand.

Your understanding seems rather limited as well...though I will grant that your "little Australian world" may indeed be somewhat less "fucked up" than America.


Pakistan a "Muslim" country?



Country profile: Pakistan

The Muslim-majority state of Pakistan occupies an area which was home to some of the earliest human settlements and where two of the world's major religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, were practised.


Pity racist shit like this isn't restricted either!

Saying Pakistan is a Muslim country is "racist"?

Are Muslims a "race"?


You know I always questioned your sanity, but this puts it beyond a doubt.



Get a fuckin reality check! Not just in regards to the "real world" but everything in general. Your worldview is completely skewed, arrogant, ignorant and for lack of a better word FUCKED!

And yours? Your title ought to be "Grand Mufti of Reaction" at Che-Lives.


Now Fuck off and make yourself feel important somewhere else; I wish to re-engage my intellectual conversation with...

Neat trick...since you have yet to demonstrate the intellectual capacity of pond scum.

Even your insults are repetitive and boring.

Try this site: Insult Monger

A guy like you needs all the help he can get.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 1, 2004


While I can see the apparent benefits of this situation, to me this would be a hell, devoid of any spice and flair, but instead, bleak, bland and monotonous.

Thus you would preserve material inequality and even exploitation and oppression in order that you might...avoid boredom.

Good call!


Although this "Utopia" would be as such for a short time, eventually mono-culture would ensue, if it didn't from the beginning.

Horrors! No more ethnic/religious mutual slaughter! How boring!


No more art, because we would all see things the same way, etc.

Quite possibly least in terms of what has always traditionally been considered "art".

Picasso could not have painted "Guernica" unless the Nazis had bombed it first.

Was it worth it?


What so many people of communist or socialist persuasions (particularly on this board) fail to realise is that to have a positive you MUST have a negative.

A metaphysical assertion, of course. Today, at least in the "west", we have lost both "lords" and serfs.

Want to bring them back?


The left would not exist without the right, as one is a reaction to the apparent failings of one.

Yes, the time will certainly come when both will be of interest only to a few antiquarians.

Lucky people!


In this type of Mono society let me tell you there would be NO progression.

Another metaphysical assertion...and even more divorced from material reality. Until such time (!) that humans have completely refashioned the universe according to its preferences, progress will continue.

That will take a while.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 2, 2004


If you appreciated the full value of what culture is, then you too would understand why it is vital to preserve it.

No doubt...just as if I "appreciated" the "full value" of the supernatural, I'd "understand" why it was "vital" to "worship" it.

Lucky me! I missed on both.


Can we really talk in absolute tangible terms here?

The left cannot exist without the right, if the right were perfect would we be reacting to their policies and attitudes? Similarly if the left were perfect would there be support for the right?

There's nothing "tangible" about what you just said. The "left" and the "right" reflect material class has nothing to do with abstract "perfection".


Tell me how you see society progressing when there is firstly no external social opposition or "antithesis" so to speak, and no internal opposition or criticism?

Nature relentlessly criticizes all human societies...the universe is fundamentally hostile to human life and purpose. Even if all humans were in perfect agreement on all matters, nature would implacably oppose us.

What humans will do, most likely, is struggle with each other on how best to overcome the limits of nature.

There will be lots of progress to come.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 4, 2004


I can understand that there would be certain benefits in having a "mono culture" where we all shared the same mode and passage of thinking, but I see this not as the "coming together" of cultures, but more as the "bulldozing and subsequent paving over" of other cultures by the West.

Be specific.

What's disappearing that you want to preserve?

Old languages?

Old religions?

Musical forms?

Literary forms?

Food styles?

Clothing styles?

Gender roles?

Or perhaps the whole sense of having a "specific" or "unique" culture that's different from (superior to?) other cultures?

We will still have a culture, even if it's a universal one...ergo, we will still "be human".


By your means of thinking you would suppress/oppress other "counter-revolutionary" "reactionary" cultures in order to attain a singular and linear form of material equality.

If need be, I have no problem with that.

Certainly there are particular "cultural practices" that would be suppressed...on the grounds that they are oppressive and inhumane.


You can compare and forecast present events, but this merely serves to colonise the future by projecting a linear present forward in time, which is detrimental both to the forecaster and all others bound to the same present.

Where is the "detriment"? I'm not sure of what "colonizing the future" means -- it sounds impressive -- but an egalitarian and libertarian human culture "all over the world" sounds like "a good thing" to me.


That is true, but technological progress would be all that is likely to eventuate from nature's "hostilities".

It's the only kind of progress that actually seems to do us any real good.



This is what a lot of Nazis seem to be talking about today. I am being serious; a lot of Nazi sites talk about maintaining cultural heritage, tradition and identity, and that's how they justify their xenophobic attitude.

A very important point!
First posted at Che-Lives on July 6, 2004


Well, Culture as a whole basically. The entirety of what it is to be "[insert culture here]". The modes of thought, the modes of expression, etc.

Modes of thought? I think the future for non-scientific "modes of thought" is quite bleak...and deservedly so.

On the other hand, modes of artistic expression should not suffer as such...though they might end up greatly mixed with those of other cultures.

Are you familiar with "world music"? Some musicians now make a practice of borrowing freely from many cultural traditions to create unique forms of musical expression.

To my ancient ears, it usually sounds more like noise than anything else...but a lot of people seem to like it.

Perhaps a "straw in the wind", eh?


Though I believe this change must be internal and not an external imposition of values and beliefs onto another culture.

Well, tanks and artillery are probably not the best way to go.

But the "world culture" will have many ways to exert pressure on the "indigenous" culture...the boycott being one of the most effective.

E.g., "until your country liberates its women, we won't buy from you, sell to you, or have anything to do with you, period."

Ostracism is a very potent social weapon.


I sure do enjoy your absolutism.

Always happy to oblige.


I don't appreciate [his] snide and arrogant insinuations and value judgments of cultural heritage. Throw yours away, I don't give a flying fuck, but don't presume to devalue and debase other's cultures and/or heritage.

He made an observation...and you erupt!


Too close to the truth perhaps?


Bullshit! This is not a fucking important point but a cheap, culturally superior, and arrogant shot at heritage and identity.

No, it actually points, I think, at the reactionary core of "heritage/identity" politics.

Something to think about.


Colonising the future is currently the West's biggest priority.

If you say so...I rather thought it was imperialist war myself.


In simple terms by forecasting and "super planning" the future based on a global scale the west is forcing the world into its linear plan of "progress".

You can plan and forecast all you want...but to "force" things, you need troops and money.

The "west" is not doing well with either, at the moment.


As I have said in an earlier post, when you say future, the first things that come to most minds are concepts such as "globalisation or global community" and "super technology (spaceships, lasers, etc., etc.)".

Not to mention global proletarian revolution.

So? Are those unreasonable things to envision?

Are they not actually happening?


Basically by forecasting and predicting mainstream societal and economic trends the west is projecting a linear and somewhat less then desirable present onto the future.

Either their forecasts and predictions are right or they are wrong.

Muslim fundamentalists "forecast" a whole world converted to Islam. Right or wrong?

Communists forecast a classless society over the whole world. Right or wrong?

You can't change the world with a forecast.


Besides a few minor aesthetic changes, the west would remain as it is; we would just make water with a machine and teleport everywhere.

I like that "teleport everywhere" idea...but I'm afraid that in the light of present knowledge it's quite impossible.


And let me tell you in the grand scheme of things, a communist revolution is a very minor aesthetic change. It makes bugger all difference to future progress and concepts whether or not material wealth is shared equally or not. Does it really matter if 6 million people have super-computers and hover cars, or if everyone has them? Society is fundamentally in exactly the same position either way.

You're beginning to sound like a neo-luddite. Just why is "super-technology" a "bad idea"? Or an "inadequate" idea?

You obviously think the differences between capitalism and communism are "minor" so what, in your view, would be "major"?

We could, I suppose, divide the world up into ethic/cultural ghettos with little or no social intercourse between them (build walls like Israel is doing)...that would certainly preserve ethnic/cultural "identity".

But why would we want to do that?

What do we gain by it?


Redstar, the first step to realising the worth of culture is confessing your ignorance on the subject. To solve a problem you first must recognise it.

You've had endless opportunities to enlighten me...but all you've offered so far is rhetoric.

Culture is important's important.

That's not good enough.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 7, 2004


This is the West's new way of colonising, by debasing other cultures. Take a walk around your nearest cities CBD and observe the number of Japanese, Indian or middle eastern takeouts. It does not interest the Postmodern west that many types of green tea are sacred and are given proper ritual in Japanese society before they are consumed; they merely want more exotic and foreign goodies to enjoy. This would be the same whether it was a communist or capitalist society; instead of the trendy bourgeois eating Japanese, every one would, while we listened to some French "cross-over" techno. See the minor aesthetic difference in the real nature of society?

Yes, I see what you mean...I just don't understand why it bothers you so much.

You are perfectly free, after all, to purchase some "sacred" green tea, learn the "proper" ritual for serving it, and consume it the way the Japanese did c.1500CE.

If others don't wish to be bothered with the ritual and just want to drink the tea because they like the taste, why should you care?

In fact, it would seem to put you in a position of congratulating yourself on your "refined aesthetic taste" while dismissing the "vulgar rabble" who are merely drinking tea.


Certain issues such as racism and the treatment of women require a base international standard and compliancy, however the imposition of forms of governance and societal plans should not be tolerated by any means.

I don't think you'd get much of an argument from any sensible communist about this. Imposing a regime, no matter how "progressive", on an unwilling populace never seems to work out well.

Sooner or later, the "blowback" wipes out all the gains and often makes matters worse...a lesson from the reign of the first Napoleon.


If the west occupies the future, then there is no escape for other cultures.

Unless they can offer a more compelling vision of an alternative future. They do not seem to be able to do that.


The west does not want its future hopes demolished or left unrecognised, so after a forecast has been made, it is cemented as a certainty in the minds of the people to ensure that it does happen.

If their forecasts appear convincing, where's the gripe? The non-western cultures only want things to "stay the same as they've always been"...but for many people, the ways things "have always been" really sucks. Why should they not therefore embrace the idea of radical change?

What do they have to lose? You can't feed your kids with "identity"?


Perhaps the world won't become a global community based on the western social and economic plan, but instead Buddhism will eventually triumph as the dominant vessel of thought. Maybe we have reached our pinnacle and will start to decline. Who knows, time might even start going backwards. In order to free our futures we must free our minds of the jingoistic clichιs that have been fed to us.

Those are very unappealing alternatives (the one about "time running backwards" is impossible in the light of modern physics).

If you want to "free your mind" of a "western future", then you must come up with a better future.


Because technology and scientific thought alone are completely inadequate in the human equation. We are not machines, and the socialist/communist model needs to accept that and work that notion into many of its fundamentals.

Why do you assume that technology and scientific thought "turn people into machines"? Even "geeks" fall in love.

A "hyper-tech" classless society would still be recognizably human, would it not? People would still laugh and weep, love and hate, be bored or curious or fascinated, etc.

Even if that "ultimate nerd-dream" were realized -- downloading human personalities into a computer and achieving practical immortality -- what would be on the hard drive would still be a human personality. A bit "odd" by contemporary standards, but still human.


You think that by making a bigger, sweeter, brighter coloured lollipop in the form of increased technology that it's going to keep the masses happy?

No, actually I don't. Happiness seems to be a very transient state for humans; we always find something else that we become discontented with.

I think we are, fundamentally, a "restless" species...always in search of something different and hopefully "better".


What purpose can technology serve beyond that of a tool and a distraction at best?

But those are extremely important purposes. Without them, nothing gets done and we sink into lethargy.


A major change would be in our fundamental societal ideology, away from western imperialist amalgam of culture, towards an individual, dynamic and unique society. We seem to assume an innate superiority because we have assumed all the "best parts" of the world's various cultures, neglecting to note that parts are not autonomous and operate as part of a dynamic and holistic system. Until the west recognises this, I believe there can be no major change or shift in ideals.

That seems most unlikely to happen. We gather the "best parts" because we like them; the parts we don't like are rejected because we don't like them.

The "world culture" will consist of all the bits and pieces that people like.

What's wrong with that?
First posted at Che-Lives on July 8, 2004


I'm sure you could understand the offense that would occur if suddenly communion bread became trendy and Japanese people just started eating it willy nilly.

Actually, there is a Japanese example. While only a small minority of Japanese have even been attracted to Christianity, the Japanese nonetheless celebrate Christmas as a national secular holiday...they exchange gifts and cards, etc.

I have no idea if western Christians are "offended" by this practice...and can't say I care, either. Humans like giving and receiving gifts...they will always find occasions to do so.


I do a lot of things wrong in my everyday life, I try to realise them and then rectify them. I am somewhat disappointed in those who recognise failings and yet do nothing about them.

This is a very strange statement. Are you suggesting that, for example, drinking "sacred" tea without performing the proper ritual is, somehow, "wrong"? A kind of "sin" for which "penance" is required???

How odd.


If we give [non-western cultures] the chance and encouragement to determine alternate futures, you might be amazed at what eventuates.

How is that within our power to "give"? Are you suggesting that if I stop eating Thai food, that it will promote the culture of Thailand in some way that does not take place now?

Do you want to drive the western multi-national corporations out of the "east"? That's ok with me...though I think proletarian class consciousness is a better weapon in the long run.

There have been and still are plenty of "traditional" authority figures in the "east" that have proven willing and eager to take the bribe and culture be damned.


...the non-west does not want to accept the cultural and futuristic dictations from the west. And they have a lot to lose, not the least of which is a rich and diverse heritage.

If that is actually true, then they will do that. The future is not "written in stone" and if some non-westerners want to "preserve their culture", all they have to do is convince most other non-westerners that such a task is worth doing.

I suggest that this may the the real source of your discontent...non-westerners, when they get the chance, appear to be remarkably eager to embrace "western culture".

Not long ago, I happened to be reading about the Iranian exile community in Beverly Hills (yeah...these are rich refugees who came to the U.S. after the overthrow of the Shah). All the old guys were whining...their sons disobey them and their daughters "dress like whores". And worse...all the carefully-arranged marriages dissolve like mist on a summer's morning; the Americanized Iranian women simply refuse to tolerate them.

The times they are a-changing.


You give the non-west a chance to "come up with a better future" and they just might!

Well, I'm only one guy and I do what I can; my consistent opposition to U.S. imperialism is a matter of public record.

Beyond that, I don't honestly see what I or any "westerner" could do. I would look pretty damn silly if I went there and told people "save your culture". They'd assume, correctly, that I was a nutball.

Consider this scenario: an "eastern" country still mired in class society requests material assistance from a "western" communist society. What is it "legitimate" for us to ask for in return? Would it be "unfair" to ask this society to take measures that we knew would advance the cause of communism in that country? For example, free secular education for young women is a cultural "time-bomb" in a "traditional" society...can we insist on this as a "price" for our help?


A purely scientific/technological future offers the concept of humanity little.

So you continually assert...but I don't understand why you say it. The "world culture" would still be a human culture...and surely just as "legitimate" as any other in the long history of humanity, right?


But we need multiple definitions, multiple futures and multiple cultures.

There's nothing in communism that flatly "rules that out"'s just not a priority. If people really want that, then they will presumably take measures to achieve it.

Personally, I don't expect it to happen but I've been wrong before and I could certainly be wrong this time as well.

It's always possible that instead of a "world culture", people will invent a large number of altogether new cultures...different combinations of elements of all the old cultures. If your emphasis on culture is truly justified, that might very well happen.

But I still think that all the old cultures are probably doomed.


These other non-western cultures therefore have as much right and legitimacy to exist as the amalgamating western idea of society and culture.

Abstractly, no one could disagree with you. But if people in a "traditional" culture wish to discard it for a culture that they perceive to be superior, how can you stop that from happening?


Even the most die-hard postmodernists agree that the "other" must be preserved if only in marginality in order to provide more appendices to the western meglo-culture.

I must remind you again that Marxists are not postmodernists and, in fact, are very critical of their theory.


Because the "best" and "worst" parts are highly subjective...

So they are...and so what? Won't the sheer numbers determine the outcome?

quote: like usual the West will assume ascendancy and arbitrarily decide which parts are in its best interests.

The "west" can "assume" anything it likes...but if people in the "east" don't want it, then it won't happen.


Do you think Islam would accept it if the "new culture" only contained elements of the Islamic ethical tradition?

I don't think it much matters what Islam "will accept"...their medieval outlook makes them a natural target for every progressive current of opinion in the world.

Islam is in the same position as Catholicism was in the 15th and 16th centuries...on the edge of major convulsions and upheavals. Indeed, the modern emergence of militant (or "terrorist") Islamic fundamentalism is a wedge that may crack and shatter the whole structure.

In another century, Islam may no longer exist.

First posted at Che-Lives on July 8, 2004
· Welcome
· Theory
· Guest Book
· Hype
· Additional Reading
· Links

· Contact
Latest Theory Collections
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
Defining Theory Collections
· What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
· Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
· Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
· A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
· The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
· Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
· What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
· What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
· A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
· On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
Random Quote
In brief, my opinion is that we should try for a stateless society on "day one" after the revolution. But if that turns out not to be practical, then a "Paris Commune" kind of "state" would be the only acceptable alternative. The Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist "hyper-state" is simply out of the question.  

Search Internet
Search Website
· There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.

Copyright © 2003-2006 -- Some rights reserved.