User talk:KommunistSympathizer

Talk to me, damnit! ;) Say somethin'!--KommunistSympathizer 23:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought I should leave a messege saying Hi as you appear to be the only other active user on philosophy pages at the moment, I made a few changes over the past few days so I thought I should get an account. I am afraid I am a complete anti-Maxist, but I am sure I'll forgive you, I really hope we can work to make better philosophy pages in the future as the current standard is pretty low!

YOU JUST SIGN YOUR COMMENTS COWARD. I guess it's a dubious honor, working with such a nemesis to mine! I am not blind marxist, his economy-theories the least..but...his need to look critical at social reality and what drives it, is trough me, all of me, and you can't deny it! It's just pure analyzation, baby, how CAN you be opposed to that. And to help you...MEH! I can barely stand in your gaze..get of my page, NOW! I am trough with his taunting. "Hi", or not, I am not friendly to opponent's no more. Improving philosophy with you, in alliance, would be rather an edit-war of believes...

Get out of my sight...--KommunistSympathizer 22:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wondering what was the reason for your summary message "PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but try not to "revert" my edits." Specifically the part about 'revert'? It got me interested so I checked the history for the page back to June 2004 and didn't see any reverts. And (just scanning) they looked like good-faith edits back that far. Still learning... Shenme 02:03, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello friend and comerade. First, I'd like to say, I am not exactly a supporter of Lenin and his Soviet, mainly because he either gutted and decieved Communism, or was VERY naive, at very least. Perhaps I'm only more anarchistic than most Communists (They'll probably hate me for this! HAH!). Anyways, back to you. What I meant, about "revert" was that I didn't want anyone to take back what I had written and to instead of deleting it, try to replace with something more fittin'. I didn't mean previous revert. I used "revert" with apostrophes 'cuz I couldn't find a fit "simple english"-word for it, so, sorry, but hey, it isn't really big issue 'neways, eh? Just here to help, n'stuff--KommunistSympathizer 22:18, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lenin might have been naive, but you'd have to be to try and implament Communism at a large level wouldn't you! Marx is misunderstood but he's still wrong.--Sim 22:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my words. Totalarians are naive. Albeit I don't oppose Socialism; It was only approached wrong. Instead of having a single "vanguard" party "in control", it would not be intellectuals, but electives of representatives of all professions getting true control, instead of the "union"-only power they have now, they have no real control over what the corporations "do" with their workers, but pushing for it. Yes, there are laws, but there is also practical meanings to things...and crimes have to be exposed. Aslong as the economy is allright the burgerouise acts "nice", but I won't accept compromises. When saying Marx is misunderstood I of course point to his dialectical materialism and it's claiming that things will be "automatically" drifting towards Socialist-revolution (and in turn, Communist-revolution. I am always trying to go in that direction, on largest level possible, but modesty is the key, so everything starts small, just like guerrila warfare) and I can very much understand PERFECTLY why people are hollering "Bullshit!" at such 'outrageous' claims. 'Course thing's don't happen "just by itself" and people get's "swayed" by some mysterious force-of-fate to go in that direction, but I don't doubt a second that conditions are proving to be logically walking against Capitalism's favor...the sound of revolution is INDEED clinging in the background of recent events...and it is impossible to retard a convincing. The future...is....inevitabely...leftist. Whether or not you want it, unless some great disaster comes. I'm not for the whole "re-eudication of the rich"-part, but the prolears must dictate, but freedom of speech will be an unchangable right, especially as soon as the state drifts away. Behind every ruler there is a loser, right?

Just renember; You may kill a revolutionary (in fact a bunch of'em, yer own people), but you cannot kill a revolution (permanently). It's in the mind, y'know?--KommunistSympathizer 23:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree largley with a lot of that. However I fear that if you think Marx is not claiming that the communist revolution is inevitable then you are not taking into account the force of his convictions. My main problem with Marx is that he drastically oversimplifies. For instance for Marx there are only two classes, Borgois and Proletariat. The Borgois own the means of production and the proletariat do not and so have to sell their labour to the borgois. Now this is all ver well and good, untill you realise that the class that Marx has so much disdain for, the petit borgois, the middle class that both sell their labour and own some part of the means of production, or who work as a small part of a borgois company but are well paid and have skills that mean they have power over the company, or the farmer or the supported house person, have come to dominate the economy. Now I don't blame marx for not seeing this, but I think that it very much invalidates his theories. I also take issue with his communitarian attitudes, I think that he ignores the differences between people that make cooperation on the scale his revolution demands neigh on impossible, but that is my own view and I don't hold it agains Marx that he believes something different. However I find it hard to accept a view that is so far enbedded in terms of derrision and black and white thinking, that cannot accept the existence of a wide range of different human beings (what for instance would Marx say about Disability I wander). As well as being unapealing I am affraid that I personally find this a grate flaw in Marx's thinking as his theories are imply impossible to apply to humanity as a whole.

Now when you talk of socialism that's something very different. I mean Marx was against the welfare state and other measures that socialist systems rely upon. The left has allways been devided between those who believe that what is needed is a change, but a change within the allready existing system, just for wealth to be redistibuted and barreors broken down, and those who believe like Marx that the modern system is in it'self flawed and any attempt to fix it is just an attempt to delay the revolution that is coming. Don't forget that this revoultion is not about ovethrowing the Borgois or making the Proletariat better off either, it's about instigating a whole new ecomonic modal, one which lacks othe ownership of capital that Marx believes will INEVITABLY lead to the exploitation of the proletariat. I am all for socialism, within limits, and also for libertarianism, which as you should know is heavily related to anarcho-socialism and other proto communist regimes. However when you come to Marx I simply cannot make that leap of faith that he requires, that there is no working class, that sex, education, race or disability are irrelevant, that property CANNOT be owned by one person for the good of all and that any attempts to make peoples lives better is just a way of further oppressing the proletariat. Talk about being a godless communist I feel these guys have more faith then my simple religion ever will.

Personally I am had line individualist and hence a liberal, as far as that word can be used without endangering the sort of hatred I know some people have for that term. I think that every person has a role to play within society and that it will be up to them to find that roll. As members of society what we can do then is try and remove as many barreors as we can to the right person migrating to the right place within society, so I am against class as you are brother, and as against the nanny state I am sure, but I cannot and will not accept Marxes position. --Sim 13:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]