Did Communism fake its own death in 1991?

[zero1]

I've been trying to piece together a subtle layer of the 'bigger picture' along this line of thinking.

Marx said that socialism would go through several transitional stages, not least the Statist stage, before the envisioned ideal of true Communism was achieved.

Most people consider 'Communsism', as in atheistic, Marxist / Trotskyite / Stalinist 'Communism', to be a failed 20th centrury social experiment and hold the latter-day failures of the Soviet Union and the fall of Russian communism under Gorbachev and the reforms of glasnost as evidence that it is a now redundant ideology.

But was that form of 'Communism' the real thing, or was it only a transitional stage? We know there are still Communists in both high & low places in the world. Who is carrying the flag of the ideal, Communistic world power now? China?

My proposition would be that Communism did not die in 1991, with the fall of the Soviet Union; it just took another more subtle form and even now seeks to virally infect the systems of Western Capitalism, destroying democracy from within. This can only be a good thing, let it be said, since the epitome of all systemic evil is Capitalism. The serpent of Communism is rearing up, ready to strike at the slightest sign of weakness, fear, the slightest twitch...

The majority who consider Communism a failed ideology of the past are, I believe, deceived. Communism cannot die until it comes true; until it is born as it really is meant to be, in the full of its glory so to speak.

When I personally think of Communism I think of a global conglomerate of Libertarian Socialist nation-states where the individual is respected as a key component of the whole, where food, shelter and clothing are rights for each and every man in order that they may live a dignified life, where people are free to work for themselves or others in order that the community as a whole may benefit freely and indivisibly (ie. sharing the values) of labour. Most of all, I think of a truly futuristic world society where those so gifted may re-connect with their higher powers and develop their superhuman potential; I think of the world God wanted for us, in all Her wisdom and benevolence.

This, I feel, is what real Communism, realized truly in its idealised visionary state, is all about.

In the arena of Conspiracism Realism (not Conspiracy Theorism), most of the gurus are State Capitalists (Icke, Jones, Tsarion etc). Many of them rail against the what they see as any potential for the political resurgence of Communism as in authoritarian, totalitarian, big brother police Statism in the model of Soviet Russia or (comparitively) Nazi Germany; for as we both know, both models may be said to be two sides of the same coin (State Socialism and Fascism, meaning).

However, as men like Henry Makow frequently point out, Communism has in many respects on gone underground since 1991. Rumours of its death and assumptions that the ideology has been in any real sense 'tried and failed' are false, or at the very least greatly exaggerated; it may be believed that true Communism is still out there in the hearts of men, the ideal, looking to take its place on the throne when the King fails, or the child before Capitalism points out the simple truth that 'the emperor has no clothes...'...

China persists in calling itself Communist, but really they are a controlled Mass Market State Capitalist nation, so they qualify as a different kind of enemy for the Capitalists; the battle between China and the West is merely one of competing monopolists assuming various guises of liberation and freedom, yet offering only economic slavery and each fervently trying to achieve world domination.

However, the relevant issue is this -

The act of faking one's own death is called pseudocide, and I believe this is what Communism did in 1991. I ask for your opinion on this now, poll incl.

[zero1]

As an aside, I would welcome all perspectives regarding Communism in terms of the 'New World Order', Global Governance and other such staples of the genre we indulge as well. :)

[the moral man]

Dear zero1
kind regards
You are correct in your evaluation.
The Illuminati funded and created both the National Socialists (Nazis) and Internationalist Socialists (Communists) and pit them against each other to determine who would be the driving force of the NWO.
The Communists won and they forged an alliance with the imperial Capitalists to blur the two into the 'faceless enemy' that we see today.
For example, the Great British Empire gave up overt control for covert control.
Instead of sending armies into the third world to conquer the slaves and put them to work for pennies, they just send corporations over there and put them to work under the guise of 'job opportunities'.
The Communist idea works in much the same way, they went from overt to covert and have forged an alliance with the Great British Empire.
So what you see now is the blurred 'faceless enemy' using Communism to tear up the Western nations and then using Corporations to take over the third world.
It is apparent that we will see a global version of Socialism for the many and Capitalistism for the few, all done by design.
It truth, it is not individual ideas that 'die and arise on the third day', it is that all ideologies can and will be used by the elite if it advances their own independent agenda.
yours thankfully
John

[zero1]

You are correct in your evaluation. The Illuminati funded and created both the National Socialists (Nazis) and Internationalist Socialists (Communists) and pit them against each other to determine who would be the driving force of the NWO. The Communists won and they forged an alliance with the imperial Capitalists to blur the two into the 'faceless enemy' that we see today.

OK, yes.

For example, the Great British Empire gave up overt control for covert control. Instead of sending armies into the third world to conquer the slaves and put them to work for pennies, they just send corporations over there and put them to work under the guise of 'job opportunities'. The Communist idea works in much the same way, they went from overt to covert and have forged an alliance with the Great British Empire. So what you see now is the blurred 'faceless enemy' using Communism to tear up the Western nations and then using Corporations to take over the third world.

Once again, OK, yes.

It is apparent that we will see a global version of Socialism for the many and Capitalistism for the few, all done by design. It truth, it is not individual ideas that 'die and arise on the third day', it is that all ideologies can and will be used by the elite if it advances their own independent agenda.

And another OK, yes, all true, very good, etc. I can find nothing to object to in anything you've said here, John, except that perhaps we share differing visions of what 'Communism' really means, and is really all about.

Nonetheles, appreciate the post, Moral Man.

best,

Z1

[lightgiver]

everything we see is fake past and present,

all a charade to keep everyone confused.:)

[zero1]

Everything we see is fake past and present, all a charade to keep everyone confused. :)

If so, it can be said that they are certainly succeeding in that regard. Any views regarding the proposition at hand, LG?

[kappy0405]

But was that form of 'Communism' the real thing, or was it only a transitional stage?
This.

Most people don't really have a problem with 'Communism' itself, even though they would falsely claim otherwise. They have a problem with the transitional stage that has typically resulted in an authoritarian Socialist regime.

Their problem is with Socialism, not Communism, even though they prefer to use the wrong term.

The elite just use the label 'Communism' to appease the populace into accepting their authoritarian Socialist or Fascist state.

And a self-proclaimed 'Communist Party' at the top of the pyramid of a Socialist state doesn't make that state Communist!

Among other things, the following two ideologies are essential for a system to truly be Communist:

no hierarchy
direct democracy

Without that, it isn't 'Communism'.

[tinyint]

This.

Most people don't really have a problem with 'Communism' itself, even though they would falsely claim otherwise. They have a problem with the transitional stage that has typically resulted in an authoritarian Socialist regime.

Their problem is with Socialism, not Communism, even though they prefer to use the wrong term.

The elite just use the label 'Communism' to appease the populace into accepting their authoritarian Socialist or Fascist state.

And a self-proclaimed 'Communist Party' at the top of the pyramid of a Socialist state doesn't make that state Communist!

Among other things, the following two ideologies are essential for a system to truly be Communist:

no hierarchy
direct democracy

Without that, it isn't 'Communism'.

Without central banks and money I would agree.

[rydeon]

Without central banks and money I would agree.

Without central banks and with proper checks and balances to the money (gold and silver standard) I agree too :)

[dawnismygoddess]

Yes and No.

Google "Third Way"

[cafetimes1991]

On a side note, I was going to join the Communist Party of Ireland because they are anti EU, GM foods etc etc and know how the mainstream media is manipulated. I decided against it though, as I thought I was being caught in the left-right paradigm.

[torus]

"It is a moral outrage that in the wake of the extensive denunciation of Stalin's crimes throughout what was once called the Soviet bloc, not a single Stalinist secret police functionary, concentration-camp commander, torturer, or executioner has been placed on trial for Stalinist crimes.

In another notorious case, some of the executioners of the 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn and elsewhere have been identified as living in the former Soviet Union on state pensions....

In brief, the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000 human beings, making communism the most costly human failure in all of history."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out Of Control, p.15-17

[zero1]

On a side note, I was going to join the Communist Party of Ireland because they are anti EU, GM foods etc etc and know how the mainstream media is manipulated. I decided against it though, as I thought I was being caught in the left-right paradigm.

Yes, same here, I didn't bother either. We have to move beyond crusty Marxism, I mean hell, even the Chinese won't support the CPI. However, you can't do the merry dance from one hand to the other forever; sooner or later you have to decide what you believe in, choose a side. I declared myself a Libertarian Socialist in the late 90's, and nothing has made me change my mind since. So, the Left it is, then; but we must be practical, efficient, and focused just like the enemy is, otherwise we will not succeed.

[tinyint]

Without central banks and with proper checks and balances to the money (gold and silver standard) I agree too :)

If it was a temporary measure with money, as long as everybody have not been supplied with free-energy device, I'd further agree. :)

[dawnismygoddess]

Yes, same here, I didn't bother either. We have to move beyond crusty Marxism, I mean hell, even the Chinese won't support the CPI. However, you can't do the merry dance from one hand to the other forever; sooner or later you have to decide what you believe in, choose a side. I declared myself a Libertarian Socialist in the late 90's, and nothing has made me change my mind since. So, the Left it is, then; but we must be practical, efficient, and focused just like the enemy is, otherwise we will not succeed.

I am more along the lines of a "Rightest Libertarian" if you want to call it that. However, that doesn't mean that we don't share common ground, or can't be friends. :)

[zero1]

I am more along the lines of a "Rightest Libertarian" if you want to call it that. However, that doesn't mean that we don't share common ground, or can't be friends. :)

Well, barring apocalyptic war, that is true indeed, Dawn.

You know, off-topic but, for the longest time I thought you were a girl/woman.

It's that gorgeous avatar, I guess.

You are a guy, right? :)

[lizzy]

"It is a moral outrage that in the wake of the extensive denunciation of Stalin's crimes throughout what was once called the Soviet bloc, not a single Stalinist secret police functionary, concentration-camp commander, torturer, or executioner has been placed on trial for Stalinist crimes.

In another notorious case, some of the executioners of the 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn and elsewhere have been identified as living in the former Soviet Union on state pensions....

In brief, the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000 human beings, making communism the most costly human failure in all of history."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out Of Control, p.15-17


Yep,....Anyone have a link to the documentary 'The Soviet Story'?

http://iamthewitness.com/books/Douglas.Reed/The.Controversy.of.Zion/41.The.Revolution.Extends.htm

Was'nt it Gorbachev who said ' soon you will hear the USSR is dead but it's not, only moving into the next phase....' the merging of systems , the thirdway.?

[dawnismygoddess]

Well, barring apocalyptic war, that is true indeed, Dawn.

You know, off-topic but, for the longest time I thought you were a girl/woman.

It's that gorgeous avatar, I guess.

You are a guy, right? :)

Yes, it is "dawn IS my goddess" not "I am dawn the goddess".

That's ok, I knew I was going to be in trouble when I made the username.....too late to change it now, lol.

[kappy0405]

In brief, the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000 human beings, making communism the most costly human failure in all of history."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out Of Control, p.15-17
That logic doesn't make any sense.

How does failing to implement something equate to that 'something' being a failure?

In brief, the failed effort to maintain a Freemarket Constitutional Republic in the 20th century consumed the lives of almost XX,XXX,XXX human beings, making the US Constitution & the Free Market the most costly human failures in all of history.

really? :rolleyes:

[coco]

In reference to posts #1 and #3:

http://i45.tinypic.com/20podph.gif

[coco]

I was reminded of this when someone mentioned 'The Third Way'.


What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
October 2005

Introduction: Why study Hegel?

"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)

In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.

Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.

When we understand what motivated Hegel, we can see his influence on all of our destinies. ... Hegelian conflicts steer every political arena on the planet, from the United Nations to the major American political parties, all the way down to local school boards and community councils. Dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic, and terror and intimidation are also acceptable formats for obtaining the goal. The ultimate Third Way agenda is world government. Once we get what's really going on, we can cut the strings and move our lives in original directions outside the confines of the dialectical madness. Focusing on Hegel's and Engel's ultimate agenda, and avoiding getting caught up in their impenetrable theories of social evolution, gives us the opportunity to think and act our way toward freedom, justice, and genuine liberty for all.

Today the dialectic is active in every political issue that encourages taking sides. We can see it in environmentalists instigating conflicts against private property owners, in democrats against republicans, in greens against libertarians, in communists against socialists, in neo-cons against traditional conservatives, in community activists against individuals, in pro-choice versus pro-life, in Christians against Muslims, in isolationists versus interventionists, in peace activists against war hawks. No matter what the issue, the invisible dialectic aims to control both the conflict and the resolution of differences, and leads everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts.

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore.

For a visual concept, see this simple chart [page now deleted] of the Hegelian Dialectic and Marx's Dialectical Materialism, posted by the Calverton Private School.

Definitions:

Merriam-Webster:

"Dialectic ....the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite... development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism ....any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict ...
....the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements."

"Dialectical Materialism ... 1 : the Marxist theory that maintains the material basis of a reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind."

Wikipedia:

"Hegel's dialectic often appears broken up for convenience into three moments called "thesis" (in the French historical example, the revolution), "antithesis" (the terror which followed), and "synthesis" (the constitutional state of free citizens). ... Much Hegel scholarship does not recognize the usefulness of this triadic classification for shedding light on Hegel's thought. Although Hegel refers to "the two elemental considerations: first, the idea of freedom as the absolute and final aim; secondly, the means for realising it, i.e. the subjective side of knowledge and will, with its life, movement, and activity" (thesis and antithesis) he doesn't use "synthesis" but instead speaks of the "Whole": "We then recognised the State as the moral Whole and the Reality of Freedom, and consequently as the objective unity of these two elements." ...

"Hegel used this system of dialectics to explain the whole of the history of philosophy, science, art, politics and religion, but many modern critics point out that Hegel often seems to gloss over the realities of history in order to fit it into his dialectical mold....

In the 20th century, Hegel's philosophy underwent a major renaissance. This was due partly to the rediscovery and reevaluation of him as the philosophical progenitor of Marxism by philosophically oriented Marxists, partly through a resurgence of the historical perspective that Hegel brought to everything, and partly through increasing recognition of the importance of his dialectical method. The book that did the most to reintroduce Hegel into the Marxist canon was perhaps Georg Lukacs's History and Class Consciousness. This sparked a renewed interest in Hegel reflected in the work of Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Ernst Bloch....

"Beginning in the 1960's, Anglo-American Hegel scholarship has attempted to challenge the traditional interpretation of Hegel as offering a metaphysical system." See Popular Occultism

The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).

For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave.

The Soviet Union was based on the Hegelian dialectic, as is all Marxist writing. The Soviets didn't give up their Hegelian reasoning when they supposedly stopped being a communist country. They merely changed the dialectical language to fit into the modern version of Marxist thinking called communitarianism. American author Steve Montgomery explores Moscow's adept use of the Hegelian dialectic in Glasnost-Perestroika: A Model Potemkin Village.

How is it possible to consider a Hegelian argument?

If the ideas, interpretations of experiences, and the sources are all wrong, can a conclusion based on all these wrong premises be sound? The answer is no. Two false premises do not make a sound conclusion even if the argument follows the formula. Three, four, five, or six false premises do not all combine to make a conclusion sound. You must have at least one sound premise to reach a sound conclusion. Logical mathematical formulas are only the basis for deductive reasoning. Equally important is knowledge of semantics, or considering the meanings of the words used in the argument. Just because an argument fits the formula, it does not necessarily make the conclusion sound. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel knew this when he designed his dialectic.

Hegel is an imperialist con artist who established the principles of dialectical "no-reason." Hegel's dialectic has allowed globalists to lead simple, capable, freeborn men and women back into the superstitious, racist and unreasonable age of imperial global dominance. National governments represent people who are free from imperial controls over private property, trade and production. National governments protect their workers from imperial slavery by protecting the worker's markets. But if you use Hegel's logical Marxism, the only way to protect people from slavery is to become the slave trader, just for a while. Twisted logic is why cons are so successful, and Hegel twisted it in such a way as to be "impenetrable." Like Hegel and Marx, the best street con knows his spiel has to use logic to bend and distort the story, and good cons weave their lies on logical mathematical progression. The fallacy is in the language, not in the math. Detective Phillip Worts' 2001 article Communist Oriented Policing is a nice explanation of Dialectical Materialism's influence on America.

The communitarian purpose for the Hegelian dialectic

Hegel's theory is basically that mankind is merely a series of constant philosophical conflicts. Hegel was an idealist who believed that the highest state of mankind can only be attained through constant ideological conflict and resolution. The rules of the dialectic means mankind can only reach its highest spiritual consciousness through endless self-perpetuating struggle between ideals, and the eventual synthesizing of all opposites. Hegel's dialectic taught all conflict takes man to the next spiritual level. But in the final analysis, this ideology simply justifies conflict and endless war. It is also the reasoning behind using military power to export an illogical version of freedom and false democratic ideals.

The reason we can call it the justification for modern conflicts and war, with impunity, is because no one can prove Hegel's theory is true. No matter how many new words they make up to define it, or how many new theories they come up with to give it validity, we can prove beyond a doubt that it is all false. And, we can show the final equation in Hegels' Dialectic is:

A: The [your nation goes here] System of Political Economy (List 1841)
B: state controlled world communism
C: state controlled global communitarianism.

The Hegelian dialectic is the ridiculous idea that constant conflict and continual merging of opposite ideologies, as established by extreme right or left belief systems, will lead spiritual mankind into final perfection. (Americans understood man's spiritual quests to be outside the realm of government control). Hegel's brilliance rests in his ability to confuse and obfuscate the true motives of the planners, and millions of people world-wide have been trying to make sense of why it doesn't work for over 150 years. But like the AA definition of insanity, the world keeps trying it over and over expecting different results. ...

When Frederick Engels and Karl Marx based their communist theory on Hegel's theory of spiritual advancement via constant resolution of differences, they based the theory of communism on an unproven theory.

While Darwin's theory of evolution is still being debated, there's absolutely no proof that societies are continually evolving. When Engels and Marx later based their communist theory on Lewis Henry Morgan's theory of anthropology in 1877, they again based the theory of communism on an unprovable theory.

And when Amitai Etzioni used Hegelian reasoning to base the Communitarian Network on a "balance" between (A) Rights and (B) Responsibilities, he built the entire theory of (C) communitarianism on nothing but disproven and unprovable unscientific theories....

Already gaining substantial ground against the Americans, British Marxism was bolstered when Charles Darwin published his theory of human evolution in 1859. Engels, according to modern day scholars, seized upon Darwin's theory to substantiate communism:

"When Marx read The Origin of Species he wrote to Engels that, 'although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.' They turned against what they saw as the social, as opposed to the biological, implications of Darwinism when they realised that it contained no support for their shibboleth of class oppression. Since they were slippery customers rather than scientists, they were not likely to relinquish their views just because something did not fit." (see: Marxism and Darwinism by Anton Pannekoek, 1912.)

In 1877 Lewis Henry Morgan published Ancient Society, or Researches in Life, Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism, to Civilization. Then the "slippery" Engels seized upon Morgan's work as the constantly "evolving" basis for the totally unsubstantiated theory of natural social evolution into utopian world communism....

Hegel's formula has been so successful that in 2003 all U.S. domestic and foreign policy is dominated by "communitarian thinking," the whole country is living under the new laws, and yet Americans most affected by "impenetrable" Hegelian laws have never once heard the term used.

Conclusion:

The Hegelian dialectic presupposes the factual basis for the theory of social evolutionary principles, which coincidentally backed up Marx. Marx's Darwinian theory of the "social evolution of the species," (even though it has been used for a century to create a vast new scientific community, including eugenics and socio-economics), does not adhere to the basis for all good scientific research, and appears to exist mainly to advance itself, and all its sub-socio-scientific arms, as the more moral human science. To the ACL this means the entire basis for the communitarian solution is based on a false premise, because there is no FACTUAL basis that "social evolution of the species" exists, based as it is only on Darwinian and Marxist ideology of man's "natural" evolution towards a British version of utopia.

The London-Marxist platform in 1847 was "to abolish private property." The American Revolution was based in private property rights. Marxist societies confiscate wealth and promise to "re-distribute it equally." America promised everyone they could keep and control what was the product of their own labor. Modern Marxist adherents openly claim they will "rebuild the world," and they train activist "change agents" to openly support overthrowing the legitimate governments of the world. Since their inception, Marxist agent provocateurs can be linked to every anarchist assassination and student uprising that caused chaos to the established European civilization throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Modern Americans have succumbed to the conspiracy theory label and will only listen to what the propaganda machines tell them. Now our people don't believe anyone other than maybe the Arab world "hates our freedom." Most modern Americans will never know what went wrong with their "great experiment in democracy."

While the Marxist-communitarian argument has not provided a shred of evidence to prove their utopian vision, and their synthesis does not match their own projected conclusions of world justice, we are convinced their argument does in fact substantiate our conclusion, that the entire philosophical dialectical argument is nothing but a brilliant ruse. We used to call it "a cheap parlor trick" until a responder to this page wondered how we could call it "cheap" when it's been so successful. And he was right. The dialectical arguments for human rights, social equity, and world peace and justice are a perfectly designed diversion in the defeated British Empire's Hegelian-Fabian-Metaphysical-Theosophical Monopoly game. It's the most successful con job in the history of the modern world. (For a well presented Christian overview of the con, see American Babylon: Part Five-the Triumph of the Merchants by Peter Goodgame.)

The communitarian synthesis is the final silent move in a well-designed, quietly implemented plot to re-make the world into colonies. To us it doesn't matter if there is some form of ancient religion that propels the plotters, nor does it really matter if it turns out they're aliens (as some suggest). The bottom line is the Hegelian dialectic sets up the scene for state intervention, confiscation, and redistribution in the U.S., and this is against our ENTIRE constitutional based society. The Hegelian dialectic is not a conspiracy theory because the Conspiracy Theory is a fraud. We've all been duped by global elitists who plan to take totalitarian control of all nation's people, property, and produce. Communitarian Plans exist in every corner of the world, and nobody at the local level will explain why there's no national legal avenue to withdraw from the U.N.'s "community" development plans.

[lightgiver]

If so, it can be said that they are certainly succeeding in that regard. Any views regarding the proposition at hand, LG?

Yes I have just given it to you,its all isms and schisms.:)

Live by natures law, that's the best advise I can give on good living.

Nature cannot fake anything,what you see is what you get.:D

[mephibosheth]

The essence of Hegelian dialectic is the idea that reality is One, that the Totality is a complete thing that is always composed of both thesis and anti-thesis. IOW, neither A nor -A have prominence or dominance. Oppositions are resolved in the totality of reality. Or, put another way, the universe is always a perfect balance.

'Good' will not ultimately 'triumph' because 'good' only exists in partnership with 'not-good'. Hegel's metaphysics suggests that reality is complex; that it cannot be reduced to simples, and that all perspectives are relative. If we keep pushing with our natural inclination to classify and clarify everything into neat little packages, we will ultimately end up merely making a choice to side with A or -A to the exclusion of the other. This is precisely what fundamentalists do--they refuse to see the world as complex, and attempt, fraudulently, to reduce it to the simplicity of their identification (it is 'A').

Where Hegel's theory goes off the tracks in is its application to social evolution. Even though valuation and conceptualisation are founded on a dialetic process, social evolution is not, because--just as with physical evolution--there is no way to predict the circumstances that will occur and create selection pressures. History looks neat and tidy if you derive organised religion from animism as a necessary consequence, but history doesn't unfold like a logical argument.

Moreover, evolution doesn't unfold towards a specific goal. Hence, there is no 'final state' that society, human or otherwise, is moving towards. In fact, the very idea of such a state of both dangerous and absurd. What is represents is, again, the tendancy to side with one side of the equation at the expense of the other, and purposefully reject the complexity of reality.

A final synthesis is impossible, and the application of the dialectic method to try and show this 'evolution' clearly indicates this--because there is no logical reason why the process should ever end, why it should stop at any one state of thesis-antithesis. This process is, essentially, as eternal and on-going as reality itself.

What that means, practically, is that the best we can hope for is to balance out the tension between oppositions while allowing both sides to continue to exist. (The true 'third way' is something akin to Buddhism, a middle path.) What some see and desire, however, is the elimination of all competition, and that is clearly unworkable and will only lead to even more violent and bloody revolutions.

Even the so-called 'stateless' society of Communism will eventually be gobbled up by a super-state that will arise to impose itself on the masses. It can't be helped because each movement contains the seeds of its own opposite. And no finite system can exist without its opposite.

The idea of a final synthesis is an unattainable ideal, one that would require the perfect participation of all lifeforms and the entire universe at once.

This, we can be certain, will never happen.

Thus, any move on our world to try to create this is nothing more than fantasy fueled by the desires of the powerful to assert personal control over the chaotic systems of nature and humankind.

---

Meanwhile, since 'communism' is not an entity, it cannot act to 'fake its own death', nor can it 'die'. We can only ask, 'are there any communists left, ie, are there people that still fervently believe communism is 'the answer'?' The answer to that is 'yes'. Communism is an idea that cannot be destroyed, so long as it is possible to believe it. It can only be dismantled and disarmed, if it is, indeed, self-contradictory and incoherent.

8)

[dawnismygoddess]

"...[B]the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'"

Wow, isn't that just a wonderful quote?

[coco]

mephibosheth,

Thank you for your opinion. I stumbled upon that essay and have sought other's opinions on the matter. I agree with what you say, but I think that we are continually heading toward a type of constricting Marxist ideology in today's world - thought control via marketing and media thus all being whitewashed; thought control equals movement control. The major governments of the world seems to be moving toward a narrower mindset as to what is acceptable or not behavorially. Greater controls and restrictions are imposed to 'keep the peace' and 'bring everybody onto the same page'. :( Hushing individuality, thinking outside the box, shunning those who might. Conformity, all for the common good. I find that approach stifling.

Wow, isn't that just a wonderful quote?

Shocking, no?

[el jefe]

My proposition would be that Communism did not die in 1991, with the fall of the Soviet Union; it just took another more subtle form and even now seeks to virally infect the systems of Western Capitalism, destroying democracy from within. This can only be a good thing, let it be said, since the epitome of all systemic evil is Capitalism.

When I personally think of Communism I think of a global conglomerate of Libertarian Socialist nation-states where the individual is respected as a key component of the whole, where food, shelter and clothing are rights for each and every man in order that they may live a dignified life, where people are free to work for themselves or others in order that the community as a whole may benefit freely and indivisibly (ie. sharing the values) of labour. Most of all, I think of a truly futuristic world society where those so gifted may re-connect with their higher powers and develop their superhuman potential; I think of the world God wanted for us, in all Her wisdom and benevolence.

You really believe this?

[zero1]

You really believe this?

As a vision (my own personal one) of what fully-fledged Communism in its ideal state would mean/look like, yes. Do you find it shocking, or unbelievable?

Libertarian Socialism in a contemporary sense is considerbly distanced from Marxism; I consider this a good thing. Do you?

[el jefe]

As a vision (my own personal one) of what fully-fledged Communism in its ideal state would mean/look like, yes. Do you find it shocking, or unbelievable?
Yes but I didnt notice where you were from. Always interesting to hear opinions of those in different countries. What exactly are the problems you have with Capitalism?

Libertarian Socialism in a contemporary sense is considerbly distanced from Marxism; I consider this a good thing. Do you?
Any type Socialism would do away with the "state." Why do you have so much faith in people? People are the problem with Capitalism and I think a completely limited state, unlike what American has now, would be amazing to live under. Take America back to the Republic it once was not what it was designed to be in the future under the hierarchy we have now. I don't see how a libertarian socialistic society would not fall down the same path every form of governance has before

[luciferhorus]

China persists in calling itself Communist, but really they are a controlled Mass Market State Capitalist nation, so they qualify as a different kind of enemy for the Capitalists; the battle between China and the West is merely one of competing monopolists assuming various guises of liberation and freedom, yet offering only economic slavery and each fervently trying to achieve world domination.

However, the relevant issue is this -

The act of faking one's own death is called pseudocide, and I believe this is what Communism did in 1991. I ask for your opinion on this now, poll incl.

Communism and the State.

Modern day "Communism" in China seems to me to resemble "Capitalist Christianity" in sense that while the Jesus of the Gospels was clearly an anti-Capitalist, anti-propertyist (i.e., Communist), Christianity today is primarily a Capitalist, anti-Communist phenomenon; similarly with the current Chinese Capitalist government; it is simply Communism in "name only."

With regards to the fall of the Soviet Union; one of the architects of this "fall" Gorbachev is widely rumoured to have been bribed, and it is no secret that he is now a multi-millionaire. The Capitalists do not rely only on military strategy, they do have a history of "bribing" their way into power; this has certainly been their strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"True Marxism" and "True Christianity."

The argument which has often been made is that "Marxism has never been applied;" smiliarly with the teachings of Jesus on a societal or national level. Probably the fundamentalist ideological purists of the Marxist world are best represented by the "Word Socialist Movement" activists http://www.worldsocialism.org/index.php. While other Neomarxist groups have to make do with protesting outside the annual London Anarchist Bookfair, the WSM always seem to have a table inside and they generally consider themselves to be part of Anarchist culture, since they argue that Marx only held that the state was necessary as a temporary structure to smooth the transition to stateless Communism. While this is certainly the case with Marx, unfortunately it does not appear to be human nature to simply give up power once it has been given, which is essentially why many Anarchists are ex-Marxists who consider Marx's fundamental flaw to have been his proposal for a "temporary" proletarian dictatorship; a dictatorship which often descends into "Animal Farm;" thus Anarchists tend to the favour the "technocracy" and Committe-ism of the Spanish Revolution as a way of structuring society.

Communism and Christianity as failed experiments.

With regards to Christianity, on a national or societal level, we might ask where there is a nation in the world today, or indeed in past human history, which has sold all, given all it's wealth to the eradication of property and which has outlawed the carrying of money, shoe wearing, private property (apart from one robe), the swearing of oaths and the use of Temples for public worship (all forbidden by the Jesus of the Gospels)? Of course, such a nation or society has not existed in the past few thousand years apart from possibly isolated tribes such as for example, some Indians in the Amazonian rainforest.

I am not personally suggesting outlawing "shoe wearing;" I am simply stating that just as there has never been a "Christian nation" which would accord with the teachings of Jesus, there has similarly has never been a Marxist nation according to his narrow defintion of an ideal revolutionary state; not that I in any way wish to propose this; on the contrary, since I am neither Marxist or Christian.

An idea can outlive numerous failed attempts to impliment it. The pen of a philosopher can shed more blood than myriads of tyrants; thus the necessity for absolute political correctness (correct politics); otherwise revolutions come and go and they end up being little more than palace revolutions where one tyrant is replaced by another and the revolution has to begin all over again.

Love and Light
Lux
For blasphemy, heresy, revolution, etc.
http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

[rodin]

the Jesus of the Gospels was clearly an anti-Capitalist, anti-propertyist (i.e., Communist),

He was anti statism/racism pro the individual

Communist = Biggest state possible

Zionism = Biggest racism possible

He called out the Synagogue of Satan and THAT WORKS FOR ME

[rodin]

In brief, the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000 human beings, making communism the most costly human failure in all of history."
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out Of Control, p.15-17

Actually it was 150 million, mostly Christians, and it was a resounding success for the Pharisees for whom ZB ultimately works

Cold War was a hoax top to bottom see Lend Lease and Alger Hiss etc

[luciferhorus]

He was anti statism/racism pro the individual

The "Life of Brian" satire quite accurately portrays the numerous divided Judean revolutionary movements it was quite common to have hostility towards the state; however with regards to anti-racism, the Judeans were generally rather extreme nationalists; sentiments such as "do not go into the towns and cities of the Gentiles," "I have come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel" his reference to the Gentile woman as a "dog" expresses this kind of extreme nationalism and cultural xenophobia (fear or hatred of other cultures).

Communist = Biggest state possible

This only applies to the statist Communists who have their roots in Marxism; Communism is not a unified ideology; for example the Marxists (statist Communists) hold a demonstration every year outside the Anarchist Bookfair in London "against" the Anarchists (who are anti-statist Communists), and this ideological warfare between statist and anti-statist Communists is commonplace on Internet discussion groups; however we seem to have no representatives of statist Communism on this forum to defend their ideology, but there are numerous other defenders of different flavours of the disease of tyranny (government).


Zionism = Biggest racism possible

Well yes, however it is a form of pseudo-racism (false racism); many of the Israeli Jews such as their current blond haired president are not racially Semitic, but rather they are Europeans; generally the Israeli Jews however are evangelical anti-Semites (most of the Arabs are Semites) and frankly most of the Zionist right are unlikley to be descendents of the African slave revolution depicted in the Torah. There is of course also the Zionist Left who generally tend to be anti-racists and sympathise more with the Palestinians and the victims of state terrorist Zionism.

He called out the Synagogue of Satan and THAT WORKS FOR ME

He certainly seems to have despised the religious establishment of his era and the Gospels are littered with his rants against them; comnmonly referring to them as "hypocrites;" however history is also littered with Christians who seem have carried on this tradition of hypocrisy until today Christians are mostly distinguished by being anti-Communists who represent the anti-thesis of his teachings.

Lux

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/jesus_bush.gif

[zero1]

What exactly are the problems you have with Capitalism?

You know, I tried to think of a coherent answer to this huge question; I spent the night thinking about it, I slept on it, and I still don't know where to begin. I really don't.

My first reaction on reading the question was "Jesus Christ, if YOU can't see what the problems with Capitalism are, then YOU have a problem, and it is not my job to describe those problems to YOU."

Anything else seems trite; I could waffle on about economic slavery, poverty, injustice, homelessness, starvation, corporate greed, cronyism, perversion, corruption, etc. BUT somehow I just get the feeling it would fall on deaf ears.

Any type Socialism would do away with the "state." Why do you have so much faith in people? People are the problem with Capitalism and I think a completely limited state, unlike what American has now, would be amazing to live under. Take America back to the Republic it once was not what it was designed to be in the future under the hierarchy we have now. I don't see how a libertarian socialistic society would not fall down the same path every form of governance has before.

Perhaps it is impossible to craft a system that all of everyone supports. I don't know.

[el jefe]

Oh I agree there are thousands of problems within Capitalism, but I dont agree that the sytem of Capitalism could not work very well if it werent for the sinful nature of mankind. History has proven what does and does not work. The fact that America's so called Republic is still around is shocking to me when I think about those that have come before me and what systems they had to suffer through. All it takes is good people not out to justify their own means and we would see the benefits of Capitalism over all other systems. The problem today though is that we have bred people who do not think on their own, who cant go out and create something out of nothing, who rely upon someone else to get by. America has created employees not entrepreneurs. Parents raised their kids to be sheeples to the system that defined them. Food stamps, welfare, there are literally hundreds of ways to live in America without paying a dime. Its pathetic. Now I read that schools on our East Coast are going to stop teaching history prior to 1877 :mad: We are being led to the slaughter!

Anything else seems trite; I could waffle on about economic slavery, poverty, injustice, homelessness, starvation, corporate greed, cronyism, perversion, corruption, etc. BUT somehow I just get the feeling it would fall on deaf ears.
How would those not exist in any other type of society? The system would still be made up of people. All of the above comes with people

Perhaps it is impossible to craft a system that all of everyone supports. I don't know.
I was talking with my father about this today too and we both came to the same conclusion. We are all human and we are all different. its crazy to think that there are men insane enough to want to lead a country. Which leads me to believe they are only in it for themselves. Im just glad that I know of God, because at the end of the day, Hes all that matters.

[zero1]

Oh I agree there are thousands of problems within Capitalism, but I dont agree that the sytem of Capitalism could not work very well if it werent for the sinful nature of mankind. History has proven what does and does not work. The fact that America's so called Republic is still around is shocking to me when I think about those that have come before me and what systems they had to suffer through. All it takes is good people not out to justify their own means and we would see the benefits of Capitalism over all other systems. The problem today though is that we have bred people who do not think on their own, who cant go out and create something out of nothing, who rely upon someone else to get by. America has created employees not entrepreneurs. Parents raised their kids to be sheeples to the system that defined them. Food stamps, welfare, there are literally hundreds of ways to live in America without paying a dime. Its pathetic. Now I read that schools on our East Coast are going to stop teaching history prior to 1877 :mad: We are being led to the slaughter!


Well, food stamps and welfare are the least the system can do for you, as it takes pretty much everything else from you; in your country presently, the U.S., many people are being kept alive only by these things. The State rules you and priests fool you, as the saying goes, but the bottom line is bread and to be resentful of people on welfare or food stamps just for surviving whichever way they can is not very compassionate.

We all have to live in Capitalism, not least the poor, and we have to suffer the spiritual emptiness and moral inadequacy of it. A little handout to keep you going is nothing.

How would those not exist in any other type of society? The system would still be made up of people. All of the above comes with people.


You have an even more cynical and distrusting opinion of people in general than I do. (!) Quite a feat...:);):D:p

I was talking with my father about this today too and we both came to the same conclusion. We are all human and we are all different. its crazy to think that there are men insane enough to want to lead a country. Which leads me to believe they are only in it for themselves. I'm just glad that I know of God, because at the end of the day, He's all that matters

Yes. If you're right by God in your heart, that is one of life's great blessings.

Thanks for the post, El Jefe. :)

Don't despair for your country; what goes around comes around, and these things have a way of balancing out in the end.

[zero1]

returnofcommunism.com (http://returnofcommunism.com/)



What do you mean by 'communism'?

By "Communism" we mean a totalitarian and atheistic state whose economic system is centrally planned and controlled.


What do you mean by the 'return of communism'?

We mean that there will be a resurgence of communism throughout the whole world; that communistic ideologies will become more popular and communistic solutions will be increasingly touted (either explicitly or implicitly) by political elites as a solution to problems particularly as the economic situation worsens.

Eventually communism as a system of government (though it might not be recognized as such) will return and not just to the former Soviet Socialist Republics but crucially become established in the West even to encompass all of the free world.

You've gotta laugh...

Well, join the resistance on that site, everybody; preserve the so-called 'free world' at all costs...

[rodin]

Yes but I didnt notice where you were from. Always interesting to hear opinions of those in different countries. What exactly are the problems you have with Capitalism?

usuary and monopoly which go hand in hand

free market is the answer

capitalism is not

[flyermay]

usuary and monopoly which go hand in hand

free market is the answer

capitalism is not

A real "free market" is not the solution to usury or monopolies; at the contrary, it would allow them without any kind of limits or control.

For example: in a free market a bank could charge whatever interests (which people in need would pay); there would be no limit on fractional reserve banking (at the moment set at 10 times a bank's deposits); and any corporation would be able to monopolise any commodity (and abuse their power) since there would be no antitrust laws and regulations.

[neutral]

Watch this film "Animated Soviet Propaganda" ;)

[rodin]

A real "free market" is not the solution to usury or monopolies; at the contrary, it would allow them without any kind of limits or control.

For example: in a free market a bank could charge whatever interests (which people in need would pay); there would be no limit on fractional reserve banking (at the moment set at 10 times a bank's deposits); and any corporation would be able to monopolise any commodity (and abuse their power) since there would be no antitrust laws and regulations.

There IS no usuary in a free market. All usuary does is debase the money which destroys the very idea of a market.

And monopolies cannot survive absent laws to protect them. The laws should protect individuals not faceless corporations.

[rodin]

The "Life of Brian" satire quite accurately portrays the numerous divided Judean revolutionary movements it was quite common to have hostility towards the state; however with regards to anti-racism, the Judeans were generally rather extreme nationalists; sentiments such as "do not go into the towns and cities of the Gentiles," "I have come for the lost sheep of the house of Israel" his reference to the Gentile woman as a "dog" expresses this kind of extreme nationalism and cultural xenophobia (fear or hatred of other cultures).



This only applies to the statist Communists who have their roots in Marxism; Communism is not a unified ideology; for example the Marxists (statist Communists) hold a demonstration every year outside the Anarchist Bookfair in London "against" the Anarchists (who are anti-statist Communists), and this ideological warfare between statist and anti-statist Communists is commonplace on Internet discussion groups; however we seem to have no representatives of statist Communism on this forum to defend their ideology, but there are numerous other defenders of different flavours of the disease of tyranny (government).


Well yes, however it is a form of pseudo-racism (false racism); many of the Israeli Jews such as their current blond haired president are not racially Semitic, but rather they are Europeans; generally the Israeli Jews however are evangelical anti-Semites (most of the Arabs are Semites) and frankly most of the Zionist right are unlikley to be descendents of the African slave revolution depicted in the Torah. There is of course also the Zionist Left who generally tend to be anti-racists and sympathise more with the Palestinians and the victims of state terrorist Zionism.



He certainly seems to have despised the religious establishment of his era and the Gospels are littered with his rants against them; comnmonly referring to them as "hypocrites;" however history is also littered with Christians who seem have carried on this tradition of hypocrisy until today Christians are mostly distinguished by being anti-Communists who represent the anti-thesis of his teachings.

Lux



Jesus was not a Jew. I follow Him, not adulterated 'Christianity'

[flyermay]

There IS no usuary in a free market.

Well, if that's true: who the hell is going to stop me lending at whatever interest I like in a 'free market'; perhaps the market itself?

All usuary does is debase the money which destroys the very idea of a market.

Lending money at an interest has nothing to do with devaluing money (or inflation); the first one existed at least 2000 years before the second one.

And monopolies cannot survive absent laws to protect them. The laws should protect individuals not faceless corporations.

A monopoly does not need protection, it just needs the freedom to do as it pleases (like in a free market).

[primordialman]

I think the people pushing zeitgeist must be communists its just too commie and utopian to me.
The proponents of Zeitgeist claim openly they will destroy the freemarket and central banks. I dont know how anyone could have missed this uncunny resembalance to communism!.

[mister lister]

Don't believe in the phony August coup that unseated Gorbachev and put Yeltsin in.

http://www.foundations-of-liberty.org/images/golitsyn_sm.jpghttp://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/issues/images/book_perestroika-deception-w220.jpg
http://www.sovietanalyst.com/sites/default/files/images/products/the_european_union_collective.jpg

The Perestroika Deception - 1995 - Part I of II
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3331772831275072579#

Democracy = Socialism, i.e. Communism (The Perestroika Deception)
February 21, 2009
http://www.savethemales.ca/democracy_socialism_the_perost.html