Evil commie here to take away your freedom

betuadollar · Oct 30, 2015

Слободна;1065196197 said:
To be honest, I think the human nature argument is a massive cop-out. Before capitalism existed, one could have claimed that feudal social relations were human nature. Before republics became common, one could have claimed that monarchy was the natural and divinely sanctioned state of affairs. Heck, before the emergence of widespread class society (i.e. a separate labouring and owning class) it could have been claimed that a class system was unnatural. The point is, what is "natural" is entirely dependent on the stage of development of productive forces and of society - it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

@AlyssaT, my username is pronounced "SLOH-bod-na", and if you're interested it's the feminine form of the adjective "free" in Serbian

Except that feudal social relations are capitalism.

TheDemSocialist · Oct 30, 2015

Слободна;1065195724 said:
I just realised I registered on this site quite a while ago and promptly forgot that I'd ever done so. Great first impression, right?

Anyway, hey everyone. I'm a female European student and, as you may have deduced from the title, a communist (specifically an "Orthodox" Marxist, if anyone cares). Which means probably everything I say is going to be insanely unpopular and make you want to fetch the ice axe, but as a member of a broad-tent-ish leftist organisation, I'm very much used to that. I'm also a strong atheist, a feminist-of-sorts in that I agree with the professed goals of feminism but not with how the movement is going about trying to achieve them, and vehemently oppose...almost all legislation. Particularly that which involves going to war or regulating people's bodies in any way.

I look forward to having some interesting debates, and painting the town red!

Hello comrade!

Paleocon · Oct 30, 2015

Слободна;1065195871 said:
Yes, in fact. My opposition to the regulation of people's bodies by the capitalist state doesn't stem from a moral position, but from the fact that said regulation is against working-class interests, and you know how it goes: "[communists] have no interest apart from that of the working class as a whole." So I'm generally opposed to killing people if there's no benefit from doing so, but for the sake of a revolution whose outcome will liberate the working class and ultimately the whole of humanity and be a much, much better alternative to social destruction, I would accept the loss of some lives (and let's face it, unfortunately, people will probably have to die in a global revolution). Regulation of people's bodies, on the other hand, serves no purpose but disempowerment and enslavement and keeps the working-class even more boxed-in, so I strongly oppose it.

Well as a reactionary conservative (as in a traditionalist monarchist, not one of the liberals that communists like to call reactionaries), I also would be fine with killing in some circumstances, such as if a person were convicted in a court of law of promoting communism or other revolutionary ideologies, which ought to be considered a serious crime.

t4pi0k4 · Oct 30, 2015

DaveFagan said:
I looked under my bed, but I couldn't find you. Sounds like you have serious opinions and that's great. Most don't realize that Communism refers to a communal system. The USA reputation for Communism reckons back to the McCarthy hearings era. It was a time when ignorance reigned supreme, for a while. If it's bad for business, the people that pay for the media will lambast it. I don't think the Communists buy enough add space, but I could be wrong.

As a conservative, i believe that you are sensitive to the concept of community!
In fact in the best of the conservative worlds, most of the things should be organized at the community level!
But did you realize that community and communism as words but in meaning as well share the same root!

And that's the funny thing, conservatives spend their time making spurious accusations against liberals for allegedly devising a plan in secret to turn the US into a communist country while at the same time and deep inside they cherish related communist aspirations, that of a society organised in terms of phalansteries (what you would call a community) where the solidarity inside the community will prevail, as described by Charles Fourier, a contender of Karl Marx in the definition of communism!
So who is the commie now?

Paleocon · Oct 30, 2015

Слободна;1065196197 said:
To be honest, I think the human nature argument is a massive cop-out. Before capitalism existed, one could have claimed that feudal social relations were human nature. Before republics became common, one could have claimed that monarchy was the natural and divinely sanctioned state of affairs. Heck, before the emergence of widespread class society (i.e. a separate labouring and owning class) it could have been claimed that a class system was unnatural. The point is, what is "natural" is entirely dependent on the stage of development of productive forces and of society - it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

@AlyssaT, my username is pronounced "SLOH-bod-na", and if you're interested it's the feminine form of the adjective "free" in Serbian

Monarchy and some version of feudalism (broadly construed) are the natural ordering of things. Which is why they were in force nearly every until a few centuries ago. Capitalism and socialism are both perverted abominations which invert society from its proper ordering. That said, capitalism is less self-destructive, and its purveyors have much less of a tendency to go on murderous rampages.

Grand Mal · Oct 31, 2015

clownboy said:
Does this scare you?

:mrgreen:

Made me spill my beer.

dimensionallava · Oct 31, 2015

Welcome comrade there is much to be done :2wave:

Ancient Herald · Oct 31, 2015

By the way, friend. i am far more evil and vile than you for i believe in things like freedom, individuality, and thinking for myself.I am the world's worse villain, and I plot every night to take over the world.

Amadeus · Oct 31, 2015

Welcome!

t4pi0k4 · Oct 31, 2015

Paleocon said:
Monarchy and some version of feudalism (broadly construed) are the natural ordering of things. Which is why they were in force nearly every until a few centuries ago. Capitalism and socialism are both perverted abominations which invert society from its proper ordering. That said, capitalism is less self-destructive, and its purveyors have much less of a tendency to go on murderous rampages.

This is completely wrong: you just confuse nature and culture! Monarchy on the one side and capitalism or socialism on the other are just political and economical choices made by a society to organize itself based on the available knowledge at the time! It pertains to culture not nature! If you want nature, I advise you to make a tour deep into the jungle, but that's not what we call civilization!
It is this very kind of BS rationale that people resorted to in order to justify slavery back in the days! Dude we are in the 21st century, this idea of a so-called "natural ordering of things" has been debunked so many times throughout history!
You should know better!

Paleocon · Oct 31, 2015

t4pi0k4 said:
This is completely wrong: you just confuse nature and culture! Monarchy on the one side and capitalism or socialism on the other are just political and economical choices made by a society to organize itself based on the available knowledge at the time! It pertains to culture not nature! If you want nature, I advise you to make a tour deep into the jungle, but that's not what we call civilization!
It is this very kind of BS rationale that people resorted to in order to justify slavery back in the days! Dude we are in the 21st century, this idea of a so-called "natural ordering of things" has been debunked so many times throughout history!
You should know better!

Not sure what you're going on about.

Civilization, monarchy, religion, these are all things which are part and parcel of human nature.

Слободна · Oct 31, 2015

Wow, so many replies...here we go.

Glen Contrarian said:
I remember a pre-calc teacher who was from Serbia. She told us - kindly but pointedly (and quite correctly) - how Americans tend to be so uneducated when it comes to higher math. She also told us how when she was taking high-school biology, when it was time to learn dissection, they didn't dissect a frog as many American students do, but they went down to the local morgue and dissected an old woman. She also told us how proud she'd been to be the head of the Young Communists (this was under Tito), and didn't realize that this wasn't something to brag about when she came to America during the Cold War.

The other thing I know about Serbia (beyond the troubles in the 1990's) is that they are very respected by military historians - they have this tendency to take on larger armies and win (see WWI).

Concerning your argument, you're quite right when it came to life before the Industrial Revolution...but we cannot have a modern first-world society without the trifecta of big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation. Just a look at all the regulation it takes (and the strength of the government required to enforce those regulations) to design and maintain a main street in a city - the curbs, the lights, the parking spaces, the crosswalks, the sidewalks, the business fronts, the access to emergency services. And THEN apply this to ALL streets inside any major city...

...that all requires a level of strong regulation and high effective taxes - and the big government needed to apply all that - that is not easily found in third-world nations.

So I do stick by my statement - if you want to live in a first-world nation, then you have to accept the big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation required to achieve and maintain the first-world status of that society.

I'm not actually from Serbia - in fact, I've never even been there. But I do speak the language passably well. It's a badass country with a badass language :8

Again, it all depends on specific conditions. The 2008 crisis was extremely recent and big government did us no favours during that crisis. At least not in Europe, where people are now being subjected to crushing austerity measures because our governments were stupid and decided to splurge during the run-up to the crisis.

betuadollar said:
Except that feudal social relations are capitalism.

Come again?

instagramsci said:
what do you think the movement should do differently?

In a nutshell, I think feminism focuses far too much on women's issues in a vacuum without giving much attention to the root causes of female subjugation and the wider conditions in which it exists. We need to start seeing women's liberation as one component of the movement for the liberation of all oppressed people from class society, as opposed to an isolated movement for the liberation of women from "those evil oppressive men" which doesn't take into account the reason for this oppression or focus on the ways in which people of other genders/no gender are harmed by the entire structure of gender roles, the family, and capitalist social relations.

Also, I love your username.

Paleocon said:
Monarchy and some version of feudalism (broadly construed) are the natural ordering of things. Which is why they were in force nearly every until a few centuries ago. Capitalism and socialism are both perverted abominations which invert society from its proper ordering. That said, capitalism is less self-destructive, and its purveyors have much less of a tendency to go on murderous rampages.

Feudalism only existed for around 1.000 years of human history. Before that were the social relations observable in ancient Greek and Roman society, which constituted an entirely different sort of class society, and further back in time - before the emergence of agriculture - society was classless (when Marxists use "classless" in the broadest sense, we don't mean lacking leaders, but rather lacking a division of society into a section which labours and a section which controls). Sure, feudalism had its place in the evolution of human society and was the best mode of production for a certain stage in the development of productive forces, but its time is up. Class societies are inherently finite and unstable, due to the antagonisms within them.

_Sal · Oct 31, 2015

Слободна;1065195724 said:
I just realised I registered on this site quite a while ago and promptly forgot that I'd ever done so. Great first impression, right?

Anyway, hey everyone. I'm a female European student and, as you may have deduced from the title, a communist (specifically an "Orthodox" Marxist, if anyone cares). Which means probably everything I say is going to be insanely unpopular and make you want to fetch the ice axe, but as a member of a broad-tent-ish leftist organisation, I'm very much used to that. I'm also a strong atheist, a feminist-of-sorts in that I agree with the professed goals of feminism but not with how the movement is going about trying to achieve them, and vehemently oppose...almost all legislation. Particularly that which involves going to war or regulating people's bodies in any way.

I look forward to having some interesting debates, and painting the town red!

welcome...I guarantee some of your opinions with be polar to mine and some will totally line up as I slide easily back and forth depending upon the issue...I look forward to reading what you have to say

betuadollar · Oct 31, 2015

Come again?

Quoting you, you said: "Before capitalism existed, one could have claimed that feudal social relations were human nature."

To what extent "feudal" actually existed I am not certain, but in any case, feudal society is capitalism. The serf seeks to capitalize on labor; the lord seeks to capitalize on productivity, etc. The feudal lord did "capitalize."

I don't agree on your version of the class-less society. We are a communal creature; there will always be need of structural organization. There will always be those who labor, always those who specialize, therefore always division as those we more or less hold in esteem and seek to emulate. If we study American colonization this is basis for all stratified class division. (Although original intent was a classless society, it was actually more stratified then than it is now.)

There are also those who capitalize on capital. Money is the commodity; they make money with money; these are also "capital-ists." Perhaps a deficiency of language, but in my opinion, there are no other valid definitions.

And yes, certainly I would expect you to challenge me on these assertions.

Alyssa T. · Oct 31, 2015

Can you please tell me how to spell your name using this alphabet? I know you already had to pronounce your username for me, but I completely forgot to ask how I could type it out. Sorry.

I really hope you stick around. Can't wait to see your input. Seriously exciting!

t4pi0k4 · Oct 31, 2015

betuadollar said:
feudal society is capitalism. The serf seeks to capitalize on labor; the lord seeks to capitalize on productivity, etc. The feudal lord did "capitalize."

Euh not quite to say the least: serfdom was slavery plain and simple, so serfs did not capitalize on anything, they barely survived! and the feudal lord he just provided security to his serfs, but apart from that he was the very definition of the human exploiting other humans! So he did not capitalize anything, he just managed the manpower he had in charge and owned!
Now you claim that a feudal society is capitalism! but is it true the other way round, that is the ultimate form of capitalism should resemble that of a feudal society? Thank God we are not there yet, but there is some hint that some want us to prepare for a journey in that direction: "no more taxes for the 1%cers, the landlords offset that disguised tax increases for the little guy, a future serf!
Sounds familiar?

betuadollar said:
they make money with money;

Yeah they are vultures and parasites, and if we genocide them, we would be much better off!

Paleocon · Nov 1, 2015

Слободна;1065199739 said:
Feudalism only existed for around 1.000 years of human history. Before that were the social relations observable in ancient Greek and Roman society, which constituted an entirely different sort of class society, and further back in time - before the emergence of agriculture - society was classless (when Marxists use "classless" in the broadest sense, we don't mean lacking leaders, but rather lacking a division of society into a section which labours and a section which controls). Sure, feudalism had its place in the evolution of human society and was the best mode of production for a certain stage in the development of productive forces, but its time is up. Class societies are inherently finite and unstable, due to the antagonisms within them.

A variation of it was in force most places in history. Zhou China was feudal, Ethiopia was feudal etc. The Romans weren't feudal although they did have an official patrician class. I'm glad though that you admit that the goal of the communists is basically to return to a (imaginary, made up, non-existent) past where everyone lived in caves and didn't know about agriculture.

Certainly aristocratic societies are more stable than democratic ones, seeing how they last longer and have included most throughout human history. They are also better morally, in that they don't deprive humans of a hierarchical structure, which is how humans naturally are (you do something along the lines of venerating Marx and Lenin, no?).

Слободна · Nov 1, 2015

The romanisation of my name would just be "Slobodna" - Serbian is a phonetic language if ever there was one.

betuadollar said:
Quoting you, you said: "Before capitalism existed, one could have claimed that feudal social relations were human nature."

To what extent "feudal" actually existed I am not certain, but in any case, feudal society is capitalism. The serf seeks to capitalize on labor; the lord seeks to capitalize on productivity, etc. The feudal lord did "capitalize."

I don't agree on your version of the class-less society. We are a communal creature; there will always be need of structural organization. There will always be those who labor, always those who specialize, therefore always division as those we more or less hold in esteem and seek to emulate. If we study American colonization this is basis for all stratified class division. (Although original intent was a classless society, it was actually more stratified then than it is now.)

There are also those who capitalize on capital. Money is the commodity; they make money with money; these are also "capital-ists." Perhaps a deficiency of language, but in my opinion, there are no other valid definitions.

And yes, certainly I would expect you to challenge me on these assertions.

I don't think anyone would dispute that feudal social relations did historically exist, and in many, many societies across the globe at that. England, France, Russia, Prussia, China...the economic systems of all of these countries were characterised by some form of serfdom, lordship and vassalage (is that even a word? :/) for much of the first millenium and in some cases before that. Feudalism didn't have private property or the profit motive, since proprietary relations were dealt with using this whole system of vassals and fiefs and rather than there being a profit motive, a characteristic feature of capitalism, people worked because of their social/legal obligations as denoted by the feudal system. Of course, towards the end of the feudal period a middle class/bourgeois emerged which was motivated by profit, but this class was the eventual cause of feudalism's sublation (by this I mean Aufhebung, is that the correct word?) so that figures. Since capitalism is defined by private property and profit. feudalism =/= capitalism.

What you're getting at there is slightly unclear, but I think it amounts to an appeal to nature. There's no reason to assume that how we conceptualise and organise society will stay the same regardless of material conditions. And given how much humanity's collective mentality has changed since feudal or ancient times, there's every reason to assume otherwise.

I'm not sure I can think of any example of an instance where "M-C-M'" and "C-M-C" haven't been accurate depictions of a capitalist transaction. Often, when money appears to be being used as a commodity, said commodity is just a service (e.g. a financial service).

Слободна · Nov 1, 2015

Paleocon said:
A variation of it was in force most places in history. Zhou China was feudal, Ethiopia was feudal etc. The Romans weren't feudal although they did have an official patrician class. I'm glad though that you admit that the goal of the communists is basically to return to a (imaginary, made up, non-existent) past where everyone lived in caves and didn't know about agriculture.

Certainly aristocratic societies are more stable than democratic ones, seeing how they last longer and have included most throughout human history. They are also better morally, in that they don't deprive humans of a hierarchical structure, which is how humans naturally are (you do something along the lines of venerating Marx and Lenin, no?

Funny that you should mention China, seeing as it stuck almost exactly to the historical materialist model. There were primitive tribes, there was a form of slave society not too dissimilar to that seen in the ancient Western world during the Xia dynasty, and then there was feudalism which gave way to capitalism which then underwent a hideous bureaucratic deformation during and after the so-called revolution of 1949. I don't know much at all about Ethiopia, but my point isn't that feudalism didn't exist or was irrelevant or anything. Rather, feudalism corresponded to a particular stage in the development of productive forces. In China, this stage happened to last for a particularly long time. In, for instance, England, productive forces developed much faster and it didn't last for nearly as long (it lasted just under 600 years, I'd say). My point about the pre-slave society classless societies was that if I wanted to appeal to nature - which I don't - I could point to the existence of widespread classless society for ~190.000 years and say that this means classlessness is the natural order of things. And I'd be more justified in doing so, since classless society existed for longer than feudalism did. But you'll never see a Marxist make this sort of argument, because we don't argue for communism on the grounds of some abstraction about natural order. We argue for it because it is the best fit for the current stage of development of the forces of production. The "primitive communism" that existed in the early days of human civilisation is also quite different from the communism of the future - they just both happen to be classless.

The only reason for aristocratic societies lasting longer than capitalist democracy (which I agree is an unsustainable and undesirable sociopolitical system) is that technological advancement wasn't as fast as it is now, and thus feudalism remained sustainable given the state of productive forces for longer. Feudalism has now been almost totally superseded apart from in very backward parts of the world, simply because we moved beyond it. I'm seeing more appeals to nature here, and unless you can find evidence showing that humans have needed not just hierarchy but class society since the beginning of time, this is totally unjustified.

Finally...agreeing with someone =/= venerating them. Nor do I agree with everything Marx or Lenin ever said.

Alyssa T. · Nov 1, 2015

Beautiful! Thank you Slobodna!

betuadollar · Nov 1, 2015

Слободна;1065201964 said:
The romanisation of my name would just be "Slobodna" - Serbian is a phonetic language if ever there was one.

I don't think anyone would dispute that feudal social relations did historically exist, and in many, many societies across the globe at that. England, France, Russia, Prussia, China...the economic systems of all of these countries were characterised by some form of serfdom, lordship and vassalage (is that even a word? :/) for much of the first millenium and in some cases before that. Feudalism didn't have private property or the profit motive, since proprietary relations were dealt with using this whole system of vassals and fiefs and rather than there being a profit motive, a characteristic feature of capitalism, people worked because of their social/legal obligations as denoted by the feudal system. Of course, towards the end of the feudal period a middle class/bourgeois emerged which was motivated by profit, but this class was the eventual cause of feudalism's sublation (by this I mean Aufhebung, is that the correct word?) so that figures. Since capitalism is defined by private property and profit. feudalism =/= capitalism.

What you're getting at there is slightly unclear, but I think it amounts to an appeal to nature. There's no reason to assume that how we conceptualise and organise society will stay the same regardless of material conditions. And given how much humanity's collective mentality has changed since feudal or ancient times, there's every reason to assume otherwise.

I'm not sure I can think of any example of an instance where "M-C-M'" and "C-M-C" haven't been accurate depictions of a capitalist transaction. Often, when money appears to be being used as a commodity, said commodity is just a service (e.g. a financial service).

Well... paragraph one might begin here:

The Problem With Feudalism - the F-Word

And given how much humanity's collective mentality has changed since feudal or ancient times, there's every reason to assume otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here in terms of a collective mentality. One could say that the Net is representative of mass mind, therefore a collective mentality, but it effects our individual lives not one iota.

I'm struggling with your third paragraph.

betuadollar · Nov 1, 2015

Слободна;1065201965 said:
Funny that you should mention China, seeing as it stuck almost exactly to the historical materialist model. There were primitive tribes, there was a form of slave society not too dissimilar to that seen in the ancient Western world during the Xia dynasty, and then there was feudalism which gave way to capitalism which then underwent a hideous bureaucratic deformation during and after the so-called revolution of 1949. I don't know much at all about Ethiopia, but my point isn't that feudalism didn't exist or was irrelevant or anything. Rather, feudalism corresponded to a particular stage in the development of productive forces. In China, this stage happened to last for a particularly long time. In, for instance, England, productive forces developed much faster and it didn't last for nearly as long (it lasted just under 600 years, I'd say). My point about the pre-slave society classless societies was that if I wanted to appeal to nature - which I don't - I could point to the existence of widespread classless society for ~190.000 years and say that this means classlessness is the natural order of things. And I'd be more justified in doing so, since classless society existed for longer than feudalism did. But you'll never see a Marxist make this sort of argument, because we don't argue for communism on the grounds of some abstraction about natural order. We argue for it because it is the best fit for the current stage of development of the forces of production. The "primitive communism" that existed in the early days of human civilisation is also quite different from the communism of the future - they just both happen to be classless.

The only reason for aristocratic societies lasting longer than capitalist democracy (which I agree is an unsustainable and undesirable sociopolitical system) is that technological advancement wasn't as fast as it is now, and thus feudalism remained sustainable given the state of productive forces for longer. Feudalism has now been almost totally superseded apart from in very backward parts of the world, simply because we moved beyond it. I'm seeing more appeals to nature here, and unless you can find evidence showing that humans have needed not just hierarchy but class society since the beginning of time, this is totally unjustified.

Finally...agreeing with someone =/= venerating them. Nor do I agree with everything Marx or Lenin ever said.

I would argue that tribal societies "politicized" based on two concerns: emotional well being and need of defense. Thus in later medieval societies we find the monastery on one end of the village and the fortress on the other. These two political forces, born of interaction, have been present in all societies virtually, I would imagine, since the dawn. The point is, society has always been stratified, never entirely classless. That said, do you have any idea why western Europe's "feudalism" disappeared or obsolesced?

betuadollar · Nov 1, 2015

t4pi0k4 said:
Euh not quite to say the least: serfdom was slavery plain and simple, so serfs did not capitalize on anything, they barely survived! and the feudal lord he just provided security to his serfs, but apart from that he was the very definition of the human exploiting other humans! So he did not capitalize anything, he just managed the manpower he had in charge and owned!
Now you claim that a feudal society is capitalism! but is it true the other way round, that is the ultimate form of capitalism should resemble that of a feudal society? Thank God we are not there yet, but there is some hint that some want us to prepare for a journey in that direction: "no more taxes for the 1%cers, the landlords offset that disguised tax increases for the little guy, a future serf!
Sounds familiar?

Yeah they are vultures and parasites, and if we genocide them, we would be much better off!

Feudalism has largely been contested by historians for at least twenty-five years now. It got itself into trouble with me, too, when I began studying American colonial history. I was examining misconceptions concerning Native Americans, too often presented by too-lazy history professors, weighed against "ownership" in the context of a colonial "fee simple"; also misconceptions concerning such things as primogeniture. In short I had gone in search of medieval origins which did not entirely agree with any "system," let alone this standard model, a thing called feudalism. It never existed. As for serfs there was a lot of variation. But certainly all seek to capitalize on labor or one simply does not survive.

Capitalism is evolutionary. Things like "feudalism" are an abstract, a construct created by historians, embraced by political philosophers such as Marx, that never existed. You can't "genocide" it either; capitalism is a life force bigger than all of humanity, as vital to existence as the air we breath.

Paleocon · Nov 1, 2015

Слободна;1065201965 said:
Funny that you should mention China, seeing as it stuck almost exactly to the historical materialist model. There were primitive tribes, there was a form of slave society not too dissimilar to that seen in the ancient Western world during the Xia dynasty, and then there was feudalism which gave way to capitalism which then underwent a hideous bureaucratic deformation during and after the so-called revolution of 1949.

Not sure where you're getting the bit about primitive tribes or slave society. And it didnt become capitalist out of necessity for change, it became capitalist because foreign influenced revolutionaries overthrew their Emperor.

I don't know much at all about Ethiopia, but my point isn't that feudalism didn't exist or was irrelevant or anything.

My point about the pre-slave society classless societies was that if I wanted to appeal to nature - which I don't - I could point to the existence of widespread classless society for ~190.000 years and say that this means classlessness is the natural order of things.

Since there's no evidence (as in evidence) that such a stage of human development ever happened, such an appeal would have no more validity than appealing to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

The only reason for aristocratic societies lasting longer than capitalist democracy (which I agree is an unsustainable and undesirable sociopolitical system) is that technological advancement wasn't as fast as it is now, and thus feudalism remained sustainable given the state of productive forces for longer. Feudalism has now been almost totally superseded apart from in very backward parts of the world, simply because we moved beyond it.

Feudalism has been abolished in most places because uncouth radicals have seen fit to overthrow it by violence. Very few places have simply moved past it.

I'm seeing more appeals to nature here, and unless you can find evidence showing that humans have needed not just hierarchy but class society since the beginning of time, this is totally unjustified.

How can there be a classless hierarchy?

Finally...agreeing with someone =/= venerating them. Nor do I agree with everything Marx or Lenin ever said.

Yes, I know that Marxists and liberals would object to my language. Still, the fact that your ideology is called Marxism is enough evidence that humans have a natural need to revere, even if they don't acknowledge that that's what they're doing.

X Factor · Nov 2, 2015

Слободна;1065195885 said:
Actually I just couldn't think of anything witty to write there.

First thing you've said that I agree with.

Evil commie here to take away your freedom

betuadollar

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Paleocon

t4pi0k4

Active member

Paleocon

Grand Mal

Russian warship, go f*** yourself!

dimensionallava

Ancient Herald

Well-known member

Amadeus

Chews the Cud

t4pi0k4

Active member

Paleocon

Слободна

New member

_Sal

betuadollar

Alyssa T.

t4pi0k4

Active member

Paleocon

Слободна

New member

Слободна

New member

Alyssa T.

betuadollar

betuadollar

betuadollar

Paleocon

X Factor

Anti-Socialist